Best software for virtualisation?
- Thread starter teknokid
- Start date
I use parallels 10 for Solidworks. Works pretty well. Haven't tried rendering or any of the flow simulations so not sure about the performance difference but other than that it works fine.
Although if you're a student you can also get VMWare for free.
Although if you're a student you can also get VMWare for free.
That's good to know - I'll probably be doing a bit of flow sim, hopefully that doesn't kill it..
Where abouts is the free student edition? The only ones I can find are ~£50?
Cheers
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 4,185
http://www.tekrevue.com/parallels-10-fusion-7-virtualbox-benchmark
Parallels has always performed better than Fusion, and integrated into OS X better as well (if you like that). But try them out, see what you like. I haven't used Fusion 7, and Parallels 10 leaves this extra annoying window open in some modes.
Parallels has always performed better than Fusion, and integrated into OS X better as well (if you like that). But try them out, see what you like. I haven't used Fusion 7, and Parallels 10 leaves this extra annoying window open in some modes.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 1,242
Parallels offers better 3D performance, VMware Fusion offers better battery life (useful if you're on a MacBook)
I use both Parallels and VMWare Fusion, but for slightly different things. Desktop stuff I always use Parallels - like it's mentioned above it integrates better with the desktop environment.
For server based stuff, or anything that scales - I.e. multiple VMs - Fusion is better in my experience. It's also simpler to migrate to ESX should ever need to go that route.
For server based stuff, or anything that scales - I.e. multiple VMs - Fusion is better in my experience. It's also simpler to migrate to ESX should ever need to go that route.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 1,242
This is the main reason why I prefer VMware, it's also easier to use your VMs between different platforms (since there's no Parallels for Windows)
I'm currently setting up with Fusion for three main reasons.
1) Performance is not a major issue for me, I need to run some legacy software from the late 90's that would be just as quick on a Celeron 300a.
2) Fusion is based on a per user licencing model which for a single user with a few mac's is more cost effective to deploy.
3) Fusion has an easy migration path if I choose/need to change host OS or hardware in the future.
For your intended use i'd agree Parallels makes more sense, try a demo and see how you get on for a 14 days, but don't rule out Fusion, synthetic benchmarks aren't always the best way to judge what's best.
1) Performance is not a major issue for me, I need to run some legacy software from the late 90's that would be just as quick on a Celeron 300a.
2) Fusion is based on a per user licencing model which for a single user with a few mac's is more cost effective to deploy.
3) Fusion has an easy migration path if I choose/need to change host OS or hardware in the future.
For your intended use i'd agree Parallels makes more sense, try a demo and see how you get on for a 14 days, but don't rule out Fusion, synthetic benchmarks aren't always the best way to judge what's best.
Last edited:
I have to retract my comment above, I needed to run a win7 vm to do some design/vinyl cutting (the industry is Corel based) and while VMWare was fine at running Draw/printing, it fell over one one critical point, the USB implementation sucks causing jobs to stop mid cut, when you've got hundreds of glasses to etch that's not fun. Migration was simple after I changed the the HD setting in Fusion to single file and after re-activating Win7 Parallels worked without issue, i'll see the demo out before I buy but it's looking like it works better for my intended use.
Last edited: