[whitedog]

lhudd, on 04 November 2009 - 08:04 AM, said:

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.

What previous version would that be? Parallels 4 works just fine in Snow Leopard on my quad core Mac Pro. In fact, they released an update to version 4 just two weeks ago with improved Snow Leopard compatibility. Of course that's in 32 bit mode. If you are one of the few people who runs Snow Leopard in the 64 bit kernel, Parallels 5 supports that. Of course most other mainstream apps don't yet do so.

Which raises a question for Macworld when they get around to testing Parallels 5 and Fusion 3: Will the 32 bit version of Windows 7 run in either app with Snow Leopard in 64 bit mode? I expect not, but since virtualization is a subtle and complex beast, I don't feel safe assuming either way.

For what it's worth, the introduction of Snow Leopard has forced the Parallels and Fusion developers to align their upgrade releases (more or less) for the first time. Thus it should finally be possible to test them in a true head to head matchup. The results should be interesting. I suspect, though, that it will be something of a tossup. Each will have its strengths and weakness which, on balance, are unlikely to favor either one. Which is a good thing, really. It means you can't go wrong buying either one. They push one another to keep improving their products.

[KPOM]

whitedog, on 04 November 2009 - 07:35 PM, said:

[
For what it's worth, the introduction of Snow Leopard has forced the Parallels and Fusion developers to align their upgrade releases (more or less) for the first time. Thus it should finally be possible to test them in a true head to head matchup. The results should be interesting. I suspect, though, that it will be something of a tossup. Each will have its strengths and weakness which, on balance, are unlikely to favor either one. Which is a good thing, really. It means you can't go wrong buying either one. They push one another to keep improving their products.

Here is my initial reaction. Despite my lower Aero scores in Parallels vs. Fusion (2.0 vs. 3.0), Windows 7 feels faster and boots faster in Parallels 5 than under Fusion 3. Parallels also is more customizable (I can change the amount of video RAM, etc.) I think both programs are nicely done and worth the upgrade cost. I'd give the edge to Parallels based on my early testing, but if Fusion works OK for people it may not be worth switching and just easier to stick with Fusion. I note that Fusion 3 is the first paid upgrade for Fusion users, while Parallels users have had to pay for a few upgrades now.

[bettiblue]

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?

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.

I only ever used Parallels 4 and Fusion 2.0. P4 smoked Fusion. It had way better cohesion/unity performance. USB was way better in P4 IMHO. It would ask me when I plugged something in. Under Fusion it just took the setting either the Mac or the VM. So if I was using OS X and could not see a USB device I had to remember that the VM had it because that setting was on.

I have Fusion 3.0 now and while its better its still slower than P4. If P5 is faster then I am dumping Fusion 3.0

[bettiblue]

tfrogh, on 04 November 2009 - 06:50 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.

P4 supports up to 8 virtual cores so does P5.

"Handle heavy workloads — Step up to full support for Mac OS X Server, 8 virtual CPUs, 64-bit Windows and 64-bit Snow Leopard Server"

To me Fusion would rail the CPU at random times when my VM was doing nothing.

[rlav]

Quote

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.

That's great news. I look forward to some guidance on which to get. It would be great if you could address the problem of Windows deauthorizing itself when the virtualization software is updated.

[Olu]

Updated to Parallels 5. I would give it a C+.....at best. Seems to have introduced a few bugs.

Disappointments:
-No significant speed boost that I can tell. Of course I'm not using any processor heavy tasks or games which is where I'd expect to see more boost.
-CPU use has increased. At idle P4 used about 2-3% processor power, now it's 4-5%. Fusion 3 uses about 5-6% at idle
-Mac look is BUUUGGYYYY. Start menu never stays open and in general it looks like a bad windows theme of OSX (which I believe it is)
-AutoHot Key doesn't work anymore. This led to some quick problem solving as this is essential for my work flow. Seems that Text Expander and AutoHot Key have conflicts when you use the same key shortcuts. Great news is that turning it off allows AutoHot Key to work in both Fusion and Parallels.
-Crystal is nice, but not nicer then the default mode of Unity for Fusion.

So where does this leave me? Not sure. I put both of them dead even at this point, with Fusion having a more solid feel. Applications switch and launch faster, and screen re-draws are more fluid. The ONLY reasons for me to stay with Parallels at this point are
-Suunto Training program in Fusion doesn't create a dock icon when it's launched. This makes switching back and forth a bit of a chore.
-Parallels has an option to auto-pause the machine when no apps are running (it hasn't worked yet probably due to background processes)

I've moved a bunch of files onto my Mac Hard Drive so that I can switch back and forth without the need to update each Virtual disk. Parallels may have lost me on this one. I'm going to stick with Fusion for the next week or two.

[EbE404]

@Olu

Thanks very much for the comments. I've been a long-time Fusion user, but I'm always open to try new things. I'm sure some of those issues can get sorted with updates, but others might be there to stay.

The comments from everybody here have been very helpful.

Got to love it when the Forums stay constructive and useful

[Jon_jon]

I have a question.
On how many different machines can you install a copy of Parallels. I have an iMac at home and I work on my MacBook and I'd like to have Parallels installed on both. I cannot find any "family pack" and searching on their page is proving unfruitful.
Thanks for any help.
Cheers