dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
573
share rss forum feed


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS

2 edits

MacTech does latest Fusion vs Parallels Test

»www.mactech.com/2013-01/virtuali···nchmarks

Good stuff for those deciding between the two.

Most surprising to me is they recommend either Win 7 or Win 8 over XP. But for me and my MBA with 4GB of RAM, XP still does a stellar job taking up only 12GB even with Office 2010 and needs only 512MB RAM to run glass smoothly. My Win 7 VMs tip the scales at 40-50GB with Office, ACAD and VB6, VS2008 and VS2010. Win 8 a bit larger still. Quite portly even for large SSDs.

The only reason I run Win 8 over XP on my MBP and desktops is for its excellent language and JIS KB layout support, otherwise they would still be with XP too.

My take given I use both is Parallels is better. It's faster, more stable and more polished; coherence is better than unity IMO. I like Fusion's 16 bit support in their printer drivers in that while Parallels would always print out of margins, Fusion's printer driver implementation printed no problem. But if I had to pick one it would be Parallels 8.



bbarrera
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-23
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1

Fusion has always worked better for me, as I use specialized USB devices (JTAG probes) to debug firmware on embedded boards. I've also noticed printer issues with Parallels, its pretty clear to me that support for USB has always lagged Fusion.

I've never experienced any lag within Windows or Linux, using either the latest Fusion or Parallels 7. I don't like how Parallels wants to integrate Windows into OS X. In the 'old days' Parallels was unstable, that seemed to get fixed with Parallels 6.



Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1
reply to skeechan

as virtualbox sits in the corner, all alone, completely free..... of thought.



bbarrera
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-23
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1

I work with vm's all day long and last I tried virtualbox (about a year ago) the commercial products were worth the money paid. Back then virtualbox would randomly crash after 15 minutes into a 30 minute compile job on Linux VM



skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

With Parallels upgrades being $40 or less (and Fusion similarly priced), it is worth the price of admission to get the polished product.



Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1

I've been using virtualbox for years?



skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

I don't know, have you



buckingham
Buckingham Pa
Premium
join:2005-07-17
Buckingham, PA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to skeechan

I chose Parallels originally and have been very happy with it running Win7 on my personal iMac. When I recently bought a MBPr 13" as a BYOD work laptop replacement, I stayed with Parallels and initially was using XP since there were some critical applications that were not supported on Win7. Those compatibility issues were resolved recently and I converted to Win7 there, too. My observations...the new, clean Win7 VM is smaller than the XP one was and runs at what seems a million times faster. SSD space for my VM is only about 22GB...including Office and other Windows applications. The XP VM (because it had been around for years, essentially) was about 35gb...


rugby
I think I know it all.
VIP
join:2000-09-26
Plainfield, IN
reply to skeechan

I've been a Fusion user since they were beta testing v1.0 and it's been a solid product...until v5. For some reason my VM's running on my retina macbook pro just aren't that fast, and really bring down the performance of my machine when in the background. I only use 2 programs in Windows, however I use them all day long. I've downloaded Parallels 8 and am giving that a try tonight to see how it performs.