VMware Fusion 2 vs. Parallels Desktop 4: Let’s Dance
When it comes to OS virtualization on a Mac, there are two major contenders for the title of virtualizer to end all virtualizers.
Likely Parallels and VMware Fusion need no introduction for TAB readers, but you might not be aware of what the latest incarnations that both programs bring to the table. VMware Fusion 2, released in September, and Parallels Desktop 4.0, just released today, have a few new tricks up their sleeves.
Setup
Setting up both machines on my aluminum iMac was incredibly easy. I used Windows XP Media Center Edition from a physical disc for both, although the programs also offer the choice of using an image instead. For both installations I used the default settings. In Parallels 4.0, this consists of a 32 GB hard drive with 512 MB of RAM and 128 MB of video RAM. VMware’s quickstart configurations sets you up with 40 GB of disk space, 512MB of RAM, and although it doesn’t have a video memory slider like Parallels, 3D acceleration is enabled.
Install times were almost exactly the same for Parallels and VMWare, at 24 and 25 minutes respectively. One nice option that Fusion provides, which isn’t available in the Parallels setup, is the ability to import settings from your Boot Camp installation of Windows.
OS X Integration
Yes, it is wrong to run Windows on your beautiful Leopard desktop. Which is why you may be inclined to hide it. You’re in luck, because both Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion offer the option to run guest OS applications in windowed mode, making it seem like they’re being run in the host system.
VMware’s Unity mode allows Windows applications to behave just like native OS X apps, in windows that can be minimized to and launched from the dock, even without booting the guest OS beforehand.
Parallels’ Coherence mode is similar, though it displays the Windows taskbar at the bottom of the screen, just above the dock.
Both integration modes are functional, and even maintain beveled application windows and shadow effects, but VMware wins out here, for two reasons. First, the taskbar seems out of place and clumsy above the dock with Parallels. Second, dragging and resizing application windows in VMware’s Unity mode is absolutely smooth, while there is some lag in Parallels’ Coherence mode.
Features and User Interface
Both UIs are clean, simple and great improvements over previous incarnations. The layout of the applications in Windowed mode are incredibly similar, as well. Major functions like Suspend, and Settings are in the upper left hand corner, and view mode toggle buttons are in the upper right. The bottom right area in both has a number of icons, which control drives, display drive access indicators, and control sound, sharing, printing, etc.
VMware shows all the devices connected to your Mac via USB, and allows you to click the icons to switch them into Windows. Parallels gains points here by allowing any storage media (USB, external HDs) to be connected to both Windows and Mac operating systems simultaneously. During initial setup, Parallels also prompted me to select which OS I wanted to mount my girlfriend’s Palm Treo in, which is a nice feature, especially for users new to virtualization.
Both programs offer the ability to take Snapshots, which is great if you’re a developer, reviewer, or IT professional, though VMware has a slight advantage here by having a button right in the application window. I also like Fusion’s ability to display the OS X menu bar when you move your cursor to the top of the screen in full mode. Parallels depends on key combinations to return to windowed mode, which offers more immersion, but feels clunky at times. In terms of pure design, I prefer Parallels, since it looks and feels more like a polished Mac application.
Performance
When it comes to general performance, both pieces of software ran Windows at a very usable pace. Applications opened quickly and were instantly responsive, and even running both Fusion and Parallels at once and doing things in OS X didn’t result in any significant slowdown. I should note here that my iMac has a 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 4 GB of RAM installed, so user experience may vary with different setups.
Both programs are boasting improved video performance, so I downloaded QuickTime to test HD playback. Conveniently, the Transporter 3 trailer was a recent addition to Apple’s hi-def content, so I used that in my test.
First, in 720p, video playback was smooth in Fusion, only showing some not very noticeable horizontal lines during fast action sequences. In Fusion, audio was slightly behind video on my first attempt, although video playback itself was mostly smooth, with no horizontal lines. Rewinding to the beginning and starting play again resolved the audio/visual syncing issue, and numerous attempts to recreate the problem failed, so it may have been an isolated event. Also, I was only using 128MB of video RAM, so assigning more may have made a difference. Oddly, Fusion would play only audio, no video, in fullscreen mode in Quicktime, while Parallels had no trouble switching from full to windowed playback.
At 1080p, playback was noticeably more laggy in Fusion, although there were never any syncing issues. Not, overall, very watchable though, and the Quicktime fullscreen bug persisted. Parallels was even more choppy at 1080p than VMWare. In both cases, I would definitely recommend sticking to 720p for HD playback.
Verdict
In the end, both applications are polished, effective ways of bringing Windows into OS X. There are no deal-breaking flaws in either software, and the choice of which to use will likely come down to what you intend to do with your virtual machine. For me, despite the problems mentioned above and features you gain, like simultaneous device mounting, VMWare Fusion wins out, due largely to its much better OS X integration. If I’m using virtualization software, there’s a good chance I want to be able to use Leopard as well, or else I’d just run Boot Camp. Fusion offers the least obtrusive way to bring Windows into your Mac sanctuary, and that’s exactly what I’m looking for.
Both Fusion and Parallels will set you back $79.99.
Tweet This (3)
Rich on November 11th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Good summary – but what I really want to ask is where you got the nice wood background. Online somewhere?
Staff Comment Darrell Etherington, TheAppleBlog on November 11th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Hey Rich, you’re the second person to ask that based on these screen. Here’s the link: http://mosqu1t0.deviantart.com/art/Vista-Ultimate-Wood-No-Glass-71941528
All credit to Deviantartist Mosqu1t0. Pay no attention to the “Vista Ultimate” portion of that title.
David B on November 11th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I just love the title of the article.
Elmak on November 11th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Of note, you can display the Windows taskbar at the bottom of the screen in Unity mode- the option is in the View menu.
Tom Reestman on November 11th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Nice article. About three months ago I downloaded both trials (before their latest updates) and concluded that VMWare was “best” as well. Both are really nice products, though.
JetEngr on November 11th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
In Parallels, you can turn off the windows task bar and it will appear just like VMWare.
Staff Comment Darrell Etherington, TheAppleBlog on November 11th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Ben Gertzfield, part of the Fusion 2 development team, was good enough to follow up with me via Twitter regarding video playback. First, it looks like 1080p content in hi-def WMV format played with Media Player works fine, test it here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/musicandvideo/hdvideo/contentshowcase.aspx
Also, according to Ben, the Quicktime fullscreen bug is apparently Apple’s, but VMware is currently trying to come up with a workaround.
Matthew Bookspan on November 11th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Darrell – nice comparison. I originally bought Parallels prior to the announcement and eventual release of Fusion. By comparison, I found Fusion to be less taxing on my system (originally a MacBook 2Ghz with 2GB of RAM) than Parallels.
When 2.0 of Fusion shipped, and it was free, it was a resounding dismissal of Parallels for me. The feature list, combined with the stability, combined with the cost savings (Parallels upgrades are expensive), ensured I will stay with VMWare. In fact, I sold my copy of Parallels the next day.
So, maybe I am biased, but I just think VMWare built a better product.
Lucky on November 11th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I would have like some benchmarks. Any chance of a few quick ones?
Suggestions: virtual machine size, application size, boot time, maybe some speed benchmarks using popular benchmarking tools for windows.
Rick on November 11th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Just thought I’d mention that VMware Fusion is a free upgrade for existing 1.x customers :-)
erik on November 11th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
after testing Fusion I also chose it…until Sun released their open source freeware virtual app, VirtualBox. The feature set is improved upon rregularly and can give either of the pay apps a run for their money in some respects. You should compare it as well.
James on November 11th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Yeah I agree with “Matthew Bookspan” VMWare is a helluva better product than Parallels, I have both and once I tried VMWare I noticed its not as much of a resource hog as Parallels, nor does it take forever to close and have problems reloading it back up like Parallels did (with V3).
Plus every release of Parallels you had to pay to upgrade.
VMWare gave all 1.x Users a free upgrade which was greatly appreciated.
Ori Matalon on November 12th, 2008 at 1:31 am
I used Parallels in the past and it had a 512MB or less RAM limit (although I have 4GB on my MacBook Pro), is it still the same? What is the limit with Fusion? Thanks ;-)
my comments at http://www.commentino.com/orim
Eric Rouse on November 12th, 2008 at 5:12 am
I use Fusion mainly be cause of compatibility with my coworkers and Fusion was just plain better when I started using it.
I did note that Fusion has some odd things about it when running in Unity. I generally run my OSX apps (mail, adium, etc) on screen 1 and the VMs on screen 2. When I tried placing the Unity driven windows on screen two it didn’t always work quite right when I was flipping back and forth. Since then I’ve pretty much kept the VM in single mode and taking up all of screen 2.
Glenn on November 12th, 2008 at 5:13 am
OK, you got Windows running on Parallels and VMWware Fusion, good work and thanks for the report. Now move on to the next candidate for virtualization that both of these programs support, and install the latest version of Ubuntu, Intrepid Ibex and get back to us with a report. If my experience is any indicator, there will be a much different outcome. No 3D, and neither Parallels nor Fusion tools will install, despite betas of Ibex being available for months now.
John Smith on November 12th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Glenn, that’s predicated on people wanting to run Linux in a VM on their Macs. It’s a LOT less common than Windows ( < 1% as common in this scenario), and 3D? Hmmm.
Simon on November 12th, 2008 at 8:40 am
I have to disagree with the writer of this piece. I just downloaded Parallels (was using VMware) and I must say that Parallels 4 is much better integrated… Especially know you have the system icons in the apple menubar. In my experience Parallels is also much snappier!
Richard on November 12th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I agree with Erik, for the simple stuff virtualbox goes a long way, for free! Before you spend some money try it…
Kris on November 12th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I can’t say that i have any experience with VMWare, but you might want to give virtualbox a shot, it’s free (as in opensource) but there’s a real company behind it’s development; Sun Microsystems.
Virtualbox runs two different CentOS servers and several Windows guests, all at once if I choose, on my Macbook Pro 2GHz (the first model so no 64bit) and I have no reason to complain about speed, plus it has just the right amount of integration for me (full screen but show the Mac menubar when I put the mouse there and take over completely except for a single dedicated “host” key)
debmerkel on November 13th, 2008 at 7:50 am
I have both VMWare 2 and PD 4 running on two identical MBP 2.6 GHz units. On previous version of both software, VMWare won hands down in terms of performance. The new PD 4 really performs neck-and-neck now. I completely disagree with the assessment that VMWare integration is better than PD. I always believed that some of the performance hits you’re using for PD was precisely for better implementation of Coherence over Unity. For example, I still have issues with artifacts when exposing window layer that was previously hidden by another GUI object and Expose implementation does not work as well in VMWare. And as others have said the Task Bar view is an option that can be toggled on/off so the reviewer just didn’t do a thorough review.
ParallelsVsVmware Unity Vs. Coherence on November 13th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Here are my notes about Unity vs Coherence.
Coherence:
- In Coherence dragging windows in noticeably **more** choppy than VMWare
- Coherence displays the Windows task bar at the bottom of your display by default. But you can turn it off (I did immediately b/c it’s ugly as sin!). Applications Menu -> Hide windows task bar.
- Coherence puts the Start button in your dock. I cannot begin to describe how useful this is! I’m always putting Unity into Windowed mode just to get some arcane app in the Start menu of my VM.
- Coherence takes the sys-tray icons in your windows VM and puts them in the corresponding area on your Mac (task bar at the top). They are colored unlike OS X icons but I like it b/c it helps me differentiate between OS-X vs. Windows utilities.
- Coherence running REMOTE DESKTOP inside of a VMWARE is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better than Unity. In Unity I loose cmd-x as cut and cmd-c as copy etc.. I have to resort to ctrl-c, ctrl-x etc… In Unity there’s tremendous lag when using remote desktop. I use remote desktop about 50,000,000 times a day so for me this is by *far* the biggest reason I’m switching to parallels.
Unity
- VMware Unity often brings all windows to the foreground when cmd-tabing between applications. For example, say you have IE in Unity and you cmd-tab to it, often (but not always) Unity will also bring *other* virtual windows to the foreground. This is a real pain when you want an OS X window next to a Virtual Window’s window.
- Unity doesn’t redraw the windows correctly when using expose. If you have unity on and several virtualized windows open (firefox, outlook etc…), they will appear overlapped and not drawn correctly. This makes expose (which I use *a lot*) pretty much useless for virtualized Windows.
Overall if you can stomach the jittery Coherence window dragging I think it’s better. To give you my background I’m a life long Windows user, converted to OS X a year ago. I’m a software engineer at microsoft so I use their products every day. It’s vital that my virtualization engine be as seamless and unobtrusive as possible. Parallels 4.0 makes that possible. So far it is > than Unity in that one aspect. I run Visual Studio 2008, remote desktop, sql server 2008 etc etc every day and I can saw without a doubt coherence beats out unity if you’re a hardcore developer.
ALL of my testing is done on Windows XP Pro x68. My host machine is an 8-core Mac Pro w/ 4 Gigs of ram. No Vista b/c in my experience Vista runs like a pig in real life and that equally translates into running inside a VM.
b on July 7th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Thanks for the post. I was incredible helpful. Until I read you comments about Remote Desktop I was gonna work with VMware.
Czymra on August 19th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Indeed, thank you for this. Based on this review a few months back I decided for VMware. However, I don’t see the point of Unity for the reasons you stated. Will switch to Parallels now.
Leto_Parallels on November 13th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Hi all, Leto from Parallels here.
To clarify on just a couple things, the application buttons are a customizable feature in Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac. If you want a button for snapshots, Safe Mode or Modality view, you can right click and “Customize Toolbar…” Also, to get the OS X menu bar in Full Screen, just press Alt-Control. No need to switch to Windowed mode.
Many little shortcuts and customizations have been implemented and they’re listed in the Preferences if you want to change the keystrokes.
To answer Ori Matalon’s question,
Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac supports up to 8GB of memory (as well as 256mb video RAM and multi-core support up to 8 CPUs) dedicated to your guest OS.
Lastly, for those interested in doing their own comparison, I invite you to download the free trial of Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac at http://www.Parallels.com as it has all the features and functionality of the full version. It’s not just an update from Desktop 3.0, it’s a new program built from the ground up.
The article has some good points and I enjoyed reading it, even though the author personally preferred Fusion. If anyone has further questions about Parallels Desktop for Mac 4.0, check our feature demonstrations at ParallelsTV on YouTube, visit our website, or e-mail me at Leto@Parallels.com
~Cheers
ParallelsVsVmware Unity Vs. Coherence on November 14th, 2008 at 6:12 am
To Leto_Prallels, rock on for creating a great release. But you might want to do some UX research on having the windows task bar dump trucked on top of the OS dock. Maybe not have it on by default? Just a humble suggestion.
Chriswan on November 14th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Parallels Desktop has nice animation effects, which is helpful to mask the ugly process when moving from windowed to full screen and vice versa, VMWare looks a little bit less appealing without it
Also I found VMWare ‘lied’ about memory usage, For 512 MB, On Activity Monitor VMWare only reported using ~60MB, but after some careful inspection on the pie graph, it actually using another ~550MB, closing VMWare will show that VMWare indeed use that mysterious memory chunk. Paralles is more honest, listing ~600MB usage)
Alex Kac on November 15th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Chriswan – VMWare didn’t lie. Parallels has ONE process that does virtualization. VMWare uses a command-line app to do the virtualization and then a user based app to show the video. The user based app only uses 50-60 MB of RAM, while the vmware-vmx process – since it runs the actual VM – uses up the 512MB.
The reason for this breakout is so that VMWare can run in 64-bit even on Tiger. Tiger requires 64-bit processes to be command line, not GUI.
Scott on November 16th, 2008 at 9:35 am
It was my understanding that Windows activation key code is recognized once. That is to say, I have Parallels installed, upgraded one of my macs to version 4.0, others still have 3.0. Multiple paid copies of windows, as same disk cannot be activated on multiple machines, but I do want to install in VMWare on the same machines as Parallels. Apparently this is possible? I have to say, support from these companies is slim to none. They DO NOT publish phone numbers, or want to you to pay for support or wait three days for an e-mail response. Any help is greatly appreciated.
David on November 16th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I’d really like to see both application being able to support Vista Aero interface and Linux flavours of 3D OS GUI’s like Ubuntu Beryl & Comiz 3D.
The lack of 3D OS means a BootCamp solution is needed to truly emulate your alternative working environments.
I personally have opted for VMWare Fusion and found the tools to capture my old PC environment and transport is as a Virtual Machine, very easy.
Jamie Kahn Genet on November 16th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
> – Coherence puts the Start button in your dock. I cannot begin to describe
> how useful this is! I’m always putting Unity into Windowed mode just to
> get some arcane app in the Start menu of my VM.
But the start menu’s contents are accessible from the Fusion app’s menus. No need to leave Unity.
Elmak on November 16th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
However, having the start menu in it’s native format can be superior to it rendered into an OS X menu.
I’ve been trying out Parallels this past week and as a Fusion customer, I can say I’m becoming to prefer Parallels. Suspend/Resume times are noticeably faster and the progress bars are more accurate.
One of the features I like most about Parallels is that the C drive is mounted as a disk to OSX. The folder mapping synchronization is more responsive, and each share folder is mounted as it’s own drive letter instead of being inside a series of folders a la Fusion. Additionally, Fusion runs into a hiccup if you attempt to open a file into the VM that is in a location not ’shared’ to the VM. Parallels does this flawlessly unless you turn up the VM isolation level in the settings (something notably lacking in Fusion).
Parallels also gives you a LOT more configurability in terms of settings for the VM, as well as offering a CPU tasking option that balances to who the CPU cycles are actively assigned to- the VM or OSX. While Fusion has this option, it is only to give preference to one or the other- Parallels has the capacity to actively change this depending if you are in the VM or an OSX application (this goes on the assumption that you’ll use Windows primarily in the ‘coherence’ mode).
Finally, Parallels gives you a series of tools that allow you to mount the drive of the VM while it isn’t running- it will even mount Fusion drives. The utility to this isn’t immense- but if you have a file on the VM that you need, you won’t have to boot up Windows just to get at it.
Sean on November 19th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
One of the major issues i have with Fusion is the fact that you can’t drag a song from OS X into mediamonkey. The only reason i use parallels is to organize and tag my music because itunes is worthless when it comes to batch tagging. When using Fusion i would have to find the music in my windows explorer in order for it to be put on mediamonkey. On parallels all you have to do is drag the songs directly into mediamonkey and this saves me a lot of time when tagging music.
Gazzer on November 20th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Parallels seems to have data transfer problems, and doesn’t support FreeBSD 7. On big builds in FreeBSD, Parallels would simply stop in the middle of the build (and this on the latest Mac Pro with 4Gigs of RAM given to Parallels).
http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=17972 [another user's similar experience]
Official comment:
“The problem is that FreeBSD 7 is not officially supported and I suppose that I/O operations just are increasing with every Leopard update…I am afraid there is no more we can do, as there is Mac OS kernels who appears on scene, this is Hard Disk speed limitation”
Now whether or not this could apply to other OS’s, it is a concern. I suspect that most users don’t come up against the situation where they are doing an intensive 2 hour I/O operation like a big build on a vanilla BSD machine, so they don’t notice it. However, VMware had no problem with this, and so I suspect that it is more robust for such operations. Seems to suggest that VMware is just the better built product (like Firewire vs. USB).
I would recommend VMWare – especially for Unix stuff.
Darren Addy on November 21st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
>Also, I was only using 128MB of video RAM, so assigning more may have made a difference.
Do you assign this within the VM Ware preferences or is this a Mac System Preference that I am unaware of?
Ben on November 23rd, 2008 at 10:35 am
I have use both VMware fusion and Parallels 2. Why not Parallels 3 and why both you may ask?
I use Professional Computer aided design packages running on Windows on my intel imac with 3Gb Ram.
Parallels 3 was MUCH slower than version 2. ProE Wildfire 3 and 4 cannot run on it. I put the disks back in the box and reinstalled version 2. VMware can run Maya, 3D studio Max, Alibre 10 & 11 that need directX. ProE Wildfire is as slow as Parallels 3 running vmware.
Therefore I have both. However using the speed of Firewire 800 I can run parallels as a virtual disk on an external hard disk drive.
Summary:
By my Experience if version 4 is 50% faster than version 3 and version 3 is half as fast as version 2. Then version 4 will be the same speed as 2!!
Elmak on November 23rd, 2008 at 10:40 am
I’d have to say though, when it comes to software releases, experience seldom means anything. I think the 30-day trial Parallels offers is worthwhile to test your experience without purchasing.
I firmly believe version 4 is a considerable speed upgrade over Fusion 2.
Gazzer on November 23rd, 2008 at 10:51 am
I’m not finding Parallels 4 to be faster than Fusion 2. Fusion seems faster at compiling which is pretty processor intense. (that’s not including the times, mentioned above, when P4 gives up altogether).
The other thing that I’m finding is that Fusion just seems to be a more mature product in terms of ‘gotchas’. For example, Parallels turns off my airport and it is impossible to turn it back on again without a restart – in fact without uninstalling it to prevent it continually doing it.
Ben on November 23rd, 2008 at 10:59 am
I would like to see hear from anyone that has used “Cross over”. Is this just restricted to MS office apps (see little point using it) or can it handle intensive CPU and RAM activities as 3D computer Aided design and Rendering.
Also a reply to Leto at parallels.. This isnt a Parallels bashing forum.
I dont see that having a snapshot tool is necessary myself. If you run time machine then isnt this backing up your virtual disk?
I’d prefer less footprint and greater native performance. (Without having to boot up as a PEECEE).
XP SP2 absolutely flies running without an antivirus having to interrogate everything. (Before everyone thinks..”Hey I pity the fool..” or “what the..” I use this for selective applications with internet access off and no access to other disks.
Vista is total piece of …. Its not even supported by many apps I have to run including my printer, scanner, or it seems Microsoft. (Dont even go there..)
Ben on November 23rd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Elmak dont be fooled with Marketing propaganda!
With software releases the box is always going to say new and improved.
You sound like the guy that sold Parallels 3! He firmly believed it was a considerably faster.
Infact there are many factors that influence the performance of the software that you are using and its not always that simple to say that one is faster than the other.
Some applications use directx while others use openGL, Some can support dual CPU’s and some are 64bit, processor, RAM and graphics card.
What annoys me a bit about parallels 4 is that it is bundled with unnecessary add ons that increase comparative lists!
Elmak on November 23rd, 2008 at 11:34 am
Well there are some valid points there- in some extents Fusion is better, in others, Parallels. I’ve used both, Fusion for considerably longer. I’ve been using Parallels since a few days after it’s release on trial- I have found that the suspend and resume times are faster in Parallels as well as the Gaming stability.
I don’t use high-demand applications in the realm of 3D and CAD or code compiling. Perhaps this is the shortcoming I can’t see in Parallels. I run a few games and use Office (since OSX Office got VBA cut, and that isn’t acceptable in the corporate world!). Frankly my biggest use of XP is IE6 for web compatibility.
My requirements for a virtual machine is that I do not dedicate all my tasks into the OS or the VM- I use both equally and I constantly switch between applications in the two. Fusion’s performance in this department is lackluster- it has trouble handling the CPU priority between your OS and the VM. In this (when enabled!) Parallels excels.
I would like to finally point out that while you might have tried Parallels 2 or 3 -and I’ve read bad reviews about Parallels back then, which is why I never purchased it- it isn’t the latest product. VMware Fusion 1.0 was and still is a very solid product, version 2 expanded the feature set- not the stability or speed, which has stayed consistent (and overall good) from version 1.
Frankly what needs done is here someone with a license of quality recognized Windows benchmarking software needs to run tests on identical installs of XP with each product. I don’t have benchmarking software for Windows else I’d do it myself.
Ben on November 23rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Yes I agree about the benchmarking. I would love to only run one virtual environment.
Also Iam dead against buying a PC just to run these apps.
Incidently I just finished a database for a client using office 2007 with vmware because office 08
for Mac doesn’t have access and the other apps use AppleScript instead of VBA. Which ms windows treats as a potential threat.
Great for client confidence when your app sets off a windows security panic attack!
Harry on November 26th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Hey, nice article!
I’m currently considering which to go with and am leaning toward VMWare.
Thanks again for the great article.
Ben on November 26th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
To assess the performance of Windows on a MAC (benchmark). You should install windows in Bootcamp and determine the time that it takes to run natively with your hardware. It will differ for everyone.
(boot up times can vary especially Anti viruses and other things wanting to connect on startup & running the application that you want to test) Time = x
Then use Parallels to do the same Time = p. Then do this with Vmware Time =v.
If x is the fastest it can be. Then p-x=performance lag for parallels and v-x is the performance lag for VMware.
However I have found that speed isnt everything. (Although it rates very highly)
Using CAD:
VMWare Parallels Bootcamp
AutoCAD Very good Very good Excellent
Inventor Good Poor Excellent
Pro/E WF3 poor Acceptable(1) Excellent
Pro/E WF4 poor Acceptable(1) Excellent
Alibre Pro Good Poor Excellent
3Dstudio Max Acceptable(2) poor Excellent
Maya Good Poor Excellent
Catia V5 R17 Poor Good Excellent
Office 2007 Very good Very Good Very Good(3)
Hypershot Good Good Excellent
AutodeskToxik 08 Poor Poor Very good(4)
Autodesk IS Good Good very good(5)
Photoshop CS3-E Good Good Very good(6)
(1) Datums take a while to refresh- can be annoying on large assemblies.
(2) Changing the view from full to tiled – refreshing doesn’t happen in an instant.
(3) The “Phattest” version of office to date- not a zippy as 2003,2000 or 97.
(4) Requires dedicated Graphics cards for professional performance)
(5) Autodesk Image studio renders slower than Bunkspeed Hypershot
(6) Photoshop Extended CS3 is replaced with CS4 which uses hardware. (Not tested)
UG, Solid works, Rhino, Solid edge not tested.
Times are not added as they are meaningless. Lets hope in time that Software vendors will or port more native applications to MAC Os. Solid works
thedude on December 1st, 2008 at 10:58 am
I use both. Parallels 3 on a mac mini 1.66ghz with 2 gigs of ram. And Fusion 2 on a macbook pro 2.2ghz 4 gigs of ram. Why? Because I bought the first release of parallels and it has been working well on my mac mini since I got it. I have to use windows at work to print to the multi-printer because it lacks post script support. I use a firewire 400 drive for my windows virtual disc and start up and shut down are solid. Usually less than 30 secs from cold start. Parallels until the last release did a great job of expanding my virtual disc when needed. Currently this and compressor are my only complaints with version 3. I don’t use it for any processor intensive apps, just office stuff and occasionally gimp and inkscape.
I tried Fusion 2 on my mini and it would never work correctly. The VM would boot but then after the second boot would loose the internet connection. The VM said it was connected but windows would not recognize it. Tried all the settings and it would never connect. So I unistalled it.
On my macbook pro, parallels 3 is not snappy at all. With the exact same setup as my mac mini it takes over three minutes to boot. I personally believe this is a limitation of the hard drive and not the software, but still annoying. I am trying out 4 and it seems better, but this time parallels has the odd internet glitch. I was able to fix it so that I could get on to the net work.
Fusion 2 on the macbook pro boots faster and just was generally more stable than parallels 3. I am still testing 4. The other thing that I really like about VMWare is the huge number of pre-configured VM’s that you can download from their website. I have been really testing ubuntu for the last few years and to have a linux VM that can use “unity” is pretty sweet. Performance is not the best but compared to my aging desktop that has ubuntu its not bad. The only thing that is lacking as others have mentioned is 3d support. But for testing I can live without that. And if you need a specific kind of unix /linux setup just look it is probably already configured you will just need to download and run it.
Over all both are solid performers with windows both installing and running most apps. If you need to have linux in “unity” then I would really go with VMware. If you just need windows and like fast boot times. Parallels is the way to go. I just wish Parallels upgrade program was a little better. I have spent 140$ over the last 3 years on their software. Fusion has only cost me 15$. So I don’t know if I will upgrade to version 4 of parallels.
Steven Weisberg on December 24th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Parallels can open its virtual machines more easily when the VMs are moved around. I am an independent IT pro, so I keep several of these around, and this is quite helpful (yes, I make my living fixing Windows at 500+ locations and I’m running around with a MacBook). VMware questions why you moved the location of your vm. Also, want to see your Firewire and eSata drives? Just “share” the volumes while the vm isn’t running. Then when you run the vm, voila.
Myron on December 31st, 2008 at 6:13 am
I have used Parallels from the beta period and am at 3.0. I use VMware Workstation on Ubuntu. I just bought Fusion 2.0 so I can test it on my MBP. I expect there will be pros and cons for both. Now a non-technical observation about pricing and continued development. In the 90’s large companies with deep pockets were able to outlast their competition who had better products. In the end there was not much choice (e.g. WordPerfect for the Mac took top honors but could not survive).
VMware had the opportunity to make a Mac product for many years and did not. Parallels made the investment, proved there was a market and delivered a product. VMware is now making a product that is very good but seems to be buying its way into the market. Competition benefits all of us. I am buying the 4.0 upgrade today and see it as a small investment to ensure better Mac virtualization products.
Pieter Christiaan Kroon on January 1st, 2009 at 5:01 pm
You know, the taskbar in coherence mode can easily be hidden… it’s just on by default but can be turned of..
R Brown on January 5th, 2009 at 6:39 am
Want actually working USB peripherals? buy VM Fusion
I bought parallels 3.0 in November
I was thoroughly disappointed in its performance, I felt cheated because almost none of my usb peripherals worked, it didnt begin to live up to expectations.
My USB GPS or USB broadband modem or my USB Game controller didnt work, making parallels almost entirely useless to me, I could have saved my money and simply used boot camp.
Parallels release 4.0 supposed as a free upgrade to new 3.0 purchasers.
I submitted my proof of purchase receipt on the 1st of Dec 08 its now January 2009 and till this date I still haven’t received a 4.0 activation key for the Parallels Manufacturer.
I bought VM Fusion and imported my VM machine and instantly every one of my usb peripherals worked perfectly.
Do not waste time and money on a product or company that cant or wont even attempt to deliver what it claims.
I dont own stock or interest in either company. but with VM fusion I do have a Virtual windows machine on my Mac with working USB peripherals.
ClausD on January 18th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
#26 Scott asked about Windows licensing… in most cases You can installe Your version of Windows on 2 computers- at leas this is the case for the OEM versions.
If You run out of serial number tryouts, You just contackt MS at the number You’ll be given on the page where it refuses your s/n. Call it (it’s fre in most countrys) and tap-in the informations wanted.
Voila! You now get the same version of your XP on both virtual machines.
Incedently, I’m trying out both for future references for my klients, and found that parallels so far would be my choice og flavour.
Jay on January 24th, 2009 at 10:25 am
When you say “VMware’s Unity mode allows Windows applications to behave just like native OS X apps, in windows that can be minimized to and launched from the dock, even without booting the guest OS beforehand.”
How is it possible to run applications in the virtual machine without booting it? I haven’t found a way to do it. Every time I launch one of these applications, i.e. Internet Explorer, VMWare Fusion and Parallels both boot the OS and then open the application. I’d love to find out how exactly to use these apps without booting the OS. Any help would be appreciated.
Jeff on January 24th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Hello all. I just finished putting up some Benchmarks of Windows 7 using the latest builds of Parallels, Fusion and VirtualBox with both x86 and x64 based images on various Macs. More results coming soon.
http://www.techbuzzwords.com/mac/macv/win7bench/win7bench.html
Mary Morgan on January 29th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
When I bought Parallels they offered a $20 rebate and would double it if I purchased one of their other software programs. It took months to get the rebate and when I tried to use it I discovered their software prices were 29.99; 39.99 and 99.99. In order to use the $40 I had to purchase something for $40 or more, when I complained, they didn’t respond. They did however send several emails asking me to upgrade.
m
rickdude on February 8th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Great article. Strangely, it was the only reasonably comprehensive comparative review of Parallels 4 and Fusion 2 that I could find with a quick Google search.
I was quite excited when I got Parallels 3 a few months ago and was able to install Vista on it thanks to a workplace licence. It worked fine and I was able to use a Windows program that I’d been interested in for a while.
Fairly recently, there were some free Parallels 3 updates, which I went a head and installed. But now Windows tells me my licence is no longer valid in my region (Japan), and invites me to buy a new copy. Does anyone know what this is about?
For me, Windows is fun until I run into my first problem. I imagine that many long-time Mac users are in the same boat. Are there any easy-to-understand Internet resources, or books, for Mac people dabbling in Windows and virtualization?
Zach on February 12th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I AM IN LOVE WITH VMWARE FUSION!!!!!!! I can’t find anything I would change, except the hi-def video playback. However since I’m running a 15 inch screen I cant do 1080 anyway. Definitely Fusion is the best pick!
fitzage on February 13th, 2009 at 10:07 am
In Fusion, Unity mode has a launcher that you can use similar to Quicksilver to bring up apps. No need for a start button.
Back in the day, I had lots of issues with quirky display performance when dragging windows in Coherence. Also, in earlier versions of Parallels, hiding the Start bar would sometimes hide Parallels altogether so you couldn’t actually get to any of your windows apps, but this appears to be fixed now.
Regarding #21, why would you need to run Remote Desktop in a VM? Just use the Mac version of Remote Desktop client.
CJ on February 15th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Thanks for your info on vmware and parallels, I’m testing them both out at the moment. I noticed your icons, where abouts are they from? In particular your documents folder, word, address book. Very cool!
LindaB on February 23rd, 2009 at 10:23 am
I purchased my 1st MAC and sometimes need to work from home (connect to my desktop at work). I have taken a windows laptop home and I am able to connect to my desktop just fine.
I purchased Fusion but have had a case open with Fusion Techs since November. We use Remote Web Workplace (NOT REMOTE DESKTOP CONNECTION) to connect to our server to get to our desktops and I have been unable to connect. The first problem was with the auto download of ActiveX. This was a problem with the security settings on my MAC.
Once the settings were corrected, I am able to connect to our server, sign in, choose my computer name and when I hit “connect” a box pops up that says “invalid server name is specified”. I am already on my server because I signed in on the 1st screen. Please make people aware that this is a problem which I have been working with Fusion Techs for 3 months.
I am now trying one other option which is Parallels that another person in our office IS able to connect with. I am going to have her try to connect to my desktop with Parallels. If she is able to connect to my desktop, this tells me that there is a problem Fusion.
I did try to use Remote Desktop Connection. The problem with this is it went directly into the server and put in data at risk, so this had to be disabled … not secure!!! I don’t want to spend $179 for PC Anywhere … we are a Non-Profit Agency.
If anyone else has had this problem I would greatly appreciate if the problem is resolved. Thanks!
MarcZ on July 10th, 2009 at 10:25 am
LindaB–
I am having the same exact problem!!!! Did you figure out how to resolve?
Pat on March 5th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I just installed Parallels Desktop 4 and now I can’t open any projects in Visual Studio 2008. I get some bogus error that says “Unable to read the project file ‘WindowsApplication1.vbproj’. Invalid URI: The hostname could not be parsed.” even though the project is saved in the Visual Studio 2008 project folder. Even if I create a new project and save it I get that same error. So right now I’m thinking of re-installing the old version of Parallels I had before. If someone knows anything about this please let me know.
jdm on March 19th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Parallels has OpenGL support, Fusion has DirectX. I need OpenGL for development, but I’m gonna try Fusion for day-to-day stuff (my corp is a Microsoft shop, so need Windows) as Parallels v4 is almost unusable when doing screen-capture apps like LiveMeeting, NetMeeting, etc. when you’re the presenter. V3 was much better. V4 seems much more stable, but slower, overall, and significantly higher CPU load – see prl_vm_app in Activity Monitor. It’s frequently 100% or more when the Windows client OS appears idle.
permivan on March 23rd, 2009 at 7:35 am
MacTech tests show Parallels Desktop 15-20% fasteк than Vmware Fusion –
Maybe that diffrence is not important or not obvious while simple running Windows on Mac with Paralles or Vmware for users.
mark schare on March 26th, 2009 at 6:35 am
I have a very basic question. I run forex trading software on boot camp. How do both Parallels, and Fushion, stack-up against Boot Camp?
kat725 on April 9th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Tried Parallels 4.0 and latest update with an existing Windows XP Boot Camp installation. With both I had to boot into Boot Camp to install Parallels Tools – would not even begin installing in OSX. Then when I tried starting Parallels, Windows would start to boot, but then would freeze. Even after half an hour I still wasn’t into Windows. I’m going to give Fusion a try.
LindaB on April 10th, 2009 at 9:08 am
VMware Fusion from comment #55. This is where I am at with the Remote Web Workplace connection thru Fusion. After 5 months of working with the Techs at Fusion, we have uninstalled and done updates and uninstalled and reinstalled the newest upgrade then went into the Virtual Machine and installed the tools. As of today, I am still at the very same point. I log into the server using Remote Web Workplace, select my computer and when I hit connect, I received the error “Invalid server name was specified”. 2 days ago the Fusion techs requested more system information. It looks like their pointers are going to “Remote Desktop Connection” instead of “Remote Web Workplace”. We are still working on this.
Just so that you know … we are able to log into my work computer via Remote Web Workplace with Parallels. YES … Parallels does work with Remote Web Workplace.
LindaB on July 10th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Hi MarcZ,
Yes we did get this resolved. My tech at Fusion’s name was Saravanan. She sent me a file with an extension of .ISO which I saved to my desktop and installed from there. Once this was installed, I was able to connect to my Remote Web Workplace without any errors or problems. I can’t say enough about Saravanan. The tech did not give up and was in constant contact with me (I am saying almost daily). You may want to try to contact her at Fusions. I don’t have the case number with me at work. I will try to post the case number tonight … this may help to resolve your issue.
I have compared the speed of Parallels vs Fusion and I would say Fusion is your best option with Remote Web Workplace. It is not “masssive” faster but it is noticeably faster. I have not downloaded the last upgrade that I have been receiving notices for. I am in fear that my problems may start all over again. I have started to have problems when I try to exit Excel, that Fusions will hang up (will not shut down) so I have had to do a “force quit” on the “Apple”. I will be logging another case with Fusions within the next week regarding this and I know that I will probably have to do the upgrade also, but until I am forced, I am going to stay where I am at.
Sorry I didn’t respond sooner.
LindaB on July 10th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Hi MarcZ … this is the case number with Fusion. It may help to connect you with Saravanan to help you solve the problem with connecting thru Remote Web Workplace.
Case number was 1148683761
Alberto Fernández on May 16th, 2009 at 11:22 am
has anyone used it for rendering on 3dmax?… like making a real god render?
wich one is best for 3d max rendering?
Thomas on June 1st, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I have a question…I had parallels and it really bogged my mac book down. I purchased VMWare Fusion. I understand VMWare Fusion has a parallels import function. Does anyone know how this works. Can I use the import function on VMWare by itself or do I have to create a VMWare virtual machine and then use the import function?
iconz113 on June 8th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
your all fools, as of 2009 benchmarks parallels is 16-40% faster depending on the configuration scenario (XP, vista, 32 64 bit), except for when your running windows xp 32 bit edition using 2 virtual processors in which case vmware was 14% faster, parallels is the winner in all other configurations by up to 40%, you can move that taskbar too dummy. Peace out bitches
bozhonga on June 28th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Having tried both fusion and parallels 3 and 4, for basic stuff like excel, word, plus some unique stuff [updating using a usb device for datacards], speed is not noticeable between the two [maybe fusion is a bit faster]. however, usb connectivity is *much* better with fusion. BUT what makes fusion *much better* is customer support–parallels customer support is non-existent! you have to purchase each upgrade, and pay *again* if you malware or whatever crashes your machine and you need to download the program again. as well, several emails to support went totally unanswered.
So performance-wise, advantage to fusion, particularly if you use usb peripherals; with respect to customer service, parallels gets an F.
iconz113 on June 28th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Even though benchmarks are saying parallels is faster, it still doesnt feel as smooh and fluid and vmware. Think im sticking with fusion
busta5000 on June 29th, 2009 at 1:16 am
I used bootcamp on my macbook with 4gb ram ddr2 & intel graphics 250mb intel core duo 2.4 I know it sucks but surprisingly all games run smoothley. I have an iMAC with ATIRADIONHD2600 250mb & 4gb ddr2 intel core 2 duo 2.8 hardisk 1tb left 80gb. now I tried bootcamp with either 32gb or 5gb I have external hardisk anyways. so I tried 32 it said not enough space I tried 5 it said not enough space!!!!!! I tried parsllels but it sucks because vista reads my graphics card as in parallels video adapter. I put the video to the max with 3d acceleration enabled but most games won’t run on an unknown graphics card it needs a physical graphics card either ATI or Nvidia. In bootcamp it recognises my graphics card well. Now is their a way to fix bootcamp(prefered) or is thier a way to let parallels read the graphics card in DXDIAG as in ATIradionHD26000 instaid of parallels video adapter?
LindaB on August 19th, 2009 at 8:20 am
I did an upgrade to Internet 8. Once I did this, I was unable to connect to our work server again using Microsoft 2003 Remote Web Workplace. I was able to connect to the server and when I chose my computer, it would say “Invalid server name.” Contacted VMware Fusion via customer support. Received a reply the next day. All you need to do is upgrade Fusion to 2.05 and all works well. Able to connect to work server just fine.
Reginald on October 29th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Wow, I’m amazed. I use Parallels and don’t have a problem with anything on my 15 inch mack book pro. I’m running Windows 7 and no issues what so ever.
guri on November 6th, 2009 at 10:54 am
This reviewer is too unfamiliar with the features of the products reviewed – and thereby making mistaken conclusions (example: the windows taskbar can be turned on/off at will in Paralles).