Parallels vs VM:Fusion

Deku · 9 Mar 2011 at 06:39

Hi all,

So I got my new Macbook Pro yesterday and I'm looking at windows virtualisation. I don't need it for anything too taxing, just maybe an odd game here and there as well as checking website compatibility in IE.

Which one is better for my needs?

MacRS4 · 9 Mar 2011 at 08:25

Lighter the load you're better with Parallels. If you want to run multiple guests & server OS then Fusion.

For what it's worth I use both - Parallels for my work office environment and Fusion for my server based multiple guest stuff. Fusion seems to scale better than Parallels, but Parallels is faster for desktop guests.

Hope that helps.

Deku · 9 Mar 2011 at 08:39

It does - a lot.

Thanks.

Spit · 9 Mar 2011 at 10:08

I use Parallels 6 and couldnt be more impressed. I run Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 on it. It runs amazing.

SiriusB · 9 Mar 2011 at 11:16

Parallels here too. Great product.

AbsenceJam · 9 Mar 2011 at 11:29

Re: Gaming
It is awful in a VM, there are various options like CrossOver which offer decent performance but BootCamp is always a lot faster.

Deku · 9 Mar 2011 at 12:19

AbsenceJam said:
Re: Gaming
It is awful in a VM, there are various options like CrossOver which offer decent performance but BootCamp is always a lot faster.

Yeah after doing some digging this morning (new to the mac) I realise that running any games in what is in effect an emulator isn't exactly a good idea.

Just backing up now then gonna make a bootcamp partition.

bigredshark · 9 Mar 2011 at 16:20

Worth pointing out Virtualbox exists and looks good, it has the advantages of being open source and multi platform. Can't speak abut performance though, I've yet to bother virtualising stuff on my Mac...

Rambaud · 10 Mar 2011 at 11:23

I have both, but prefer Parallels.

Gaming is usually not great under emulation.