A standard VMware Fusion 10 license costs $79.99, or $49.99 if you're upgrading from Fusion 7, 8, or 8.5 (there was no version 9). A Fusion 10 Pro license costs $159.99, or $119.99 for upgraders. Parallels Desktop vs VMware Fusion –A side-by-side comparison of performance, usability and functionality of the 2 best apps to run Windows on Mac.
Has anyone used both of these? Is one clearly superior to the other? I notice they are the same price. Any pros and cons?
Hennesmigrated from serverfault.comMar 27 '11 at 7:36
This question came from our site for system and network administrators.
10 Answers
I've used each and currently use Parallels.
Originally I went with Parallels since it was the first. Then I switched to VMWare since it used to have the better memory management. And now I use Parallels again.
VMWare tends to be more polished and have fewer annoyance bugs but, currently, Parallels is faster (I think I read 20%) and has better memory management. I run Windows Server 2008 as a workstation and primarily do software development with Visual Studio in there.
I did notice a big improvement when I switched to Parallels, but I also switched to Windows Server 2008 from Vista at the same time. YMMV.
BTW, no matter which product you go with, RAM is the most important resource. Try and get at least 4gigs in your Mac and allocate around 1.5 to 2 gigs to Windows.
Also, avoid using the 3D acceleration in either product unless you know you need it. I've had tons of issues with it...
If you really want good performance, you might want to ditch the VM approach and go with Boot Camp, which is essentially a partitioning tool with some extra software that makes it easy to switch between OSX and Windows. You'll have to reboot into Windows of course, but it will make full use of your system hardware and also bypass the audio / video driver problems that always seem to crop up with VMs in my experience.
Ok, here is the skinny.
You should choose VMware Fusion if any of the following apply to you:
- You use VMware Server / ESX / Workstation / Player elsewhere.
- Use the VMware appliances from VMware's website.
- You wish to create VMware appliances.
- You have stock in VMware, Inc.
Otherwise you can use Parallels, or may I suggest Virtualbox? Parallels and Virtualbox tend to have better performance than VMware across all platforms that I have used (Virtualbox: Linux, Windows, OS X) (Parallels: OS X).
On another note, you won't find any benchmark stats comparing VM software because VMware's licenses forbid the posting of benchmark stats without their permission.
If this anecdotal evidence is worth anything, on OS X 10.5.6 and VMware Fusion 2.0.4 I have been having major Windows Server 2003 file system corruption and OS X kernel panics. Happened 3 times in the past week, having to reinstall everything multiple times. Either way you go, be sure to use the snapshot features!
I have used both a little. If you are using Vmware on your servers, then creating Vmware VMs is a useful advantage.
ZoredacheZoredacheI've not had a great deal of experience with Parallels so can't really compare it with VMware Fusion. I use VMware Fusion daily at home and I picked it mainly because at work I use Windows hardware running VMware Workstation and any virtual machines it uses, I can easily use in VMWare Fusion. The format is very portable like that.
In terms of performance, I'd say the VM's tend to run slightly faster on Mac than on PC. Also, as brendanjerwin mentions, memory is important. I run a simple Windows XP VM with 512MB and that runs great. My work VMs tend to have 1GB to 1.5GB allocated, and again, they run well with VMware Fusion.
Also, if you're going to run VMs, put them on an external hard drive, as Jeff Atwood has suggested previously, since that'll help with drive access. Running VMs off of a local drive can really kill performance as you can end with contention with the main OS. I've run off both large capacity 7200rpm drives and small 5400rpm passport drives with no problems.
I know that's a bit away from what you were asking, but thought it might be relevant.
PaukPaukOver the years I have used 3 products; Parallels, VMWare Fusion, and VirtualBox. From a strictly user standpoint, I found Parallels and VMWare Fusion to be roughly equivalent. Both were a snap to setup a new VM, they were both easy to move VMs from one system to another. And both also had much the same feature set.
For my use, I found VirtualBox to be quite superior. It feels faster, has a lot more configuration options, and is completely free. It is more difficult to move VMs around, simply due to the fact that the virtual disk and machine are separate entities that are connected through a config file.
Scott PackScott PackI recently used Parallels to run a Windows application (Shockwave flash executable). The application started, but was only partly navigable. The audio and video bundled in the application did not play, only the static content (pictures). I will try VMWare as soon as I find my misplaced Windows XP CD.
I have used both Parallels and VMware Fusion and currently use VMware Fusion. The primary reason for my change is that the version upgrades (version 2 to 3, version 3 to 4) of Parallels seem to continuously corrupt my virtual hard drive image. I have had problems with the version upgrades every time new Parallels software is released (been a user since version1 was released). Each time, I'd be forced to reimport my old VHD image, reactivate and reinstall everything.
As a side note, I'm not using a standard Windows XP image - my XP license and image was one converted up from an old copy of Microsoft VirtualPC for Mac that I owned. That could be why I've experienced problems.
VMware Fusion uses the same standard VMDK virtual hard drive format along with all the other VMware products, meaning you transport your image between workstations, platforms, etc. This is certainly an good feature - especially if you like to test out different operating systems.
I do not see this mentioned yet, but if you own a iMac or other Mac hardware configuration with an ATI card, the current OS X System Update DOES NOT ALLOW 3d Acceleration with VMWare Fusion 2. I personally feel that VMWare did a poor job with their support of Mac users in this regard - there should have been some sort of email to inform their user community to hold off on the System update until driver issues could be worked out and patched with ATI and Apple. It was an 'after the fact' announcement on a VMWare blog - not an email to the user base. Users that have ATI 4850 on iMac like myself are still waiting on a fix. I love the 'Unity' feature and the features that allow moving the Virtual Machine around on different disks and the performance of VMWare, but this bad support move, just may have me delete and go to Parallels.
You're lucky - both are great products, Parallels is supposed to be faster overall with Fusion having slightly better functionality - just pick one and you'll be happy.
Personally I love the portability of VMWare VM files so went for Fusion but you can't mess this one up :)
Chopper3Chopper3Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged windowsmacosvirtualizationvmware-fusion or ask your own question.
- Pros
Flexible virtualization solution for expert and professional users. Reliable performance. Useful and easily modified default settings. Official and unofficial support for almost any Intel-based operating system.
- Cons
Run slower than Parallels or VirtualBox in testing. Lacks Parallels' Rollback feature for kiosk-style emulated systems.
- Bottom Line
VMware Fusion is a reliable virtualization solution with deep customization options and integration features for running Windows or almost any other OS on a Mac. It's slower than competitor Parallels Desktop in testing, but it has a better-balanced feature set.
VMware Fusion is industrial-strength virtualization software for the Mac, in the same way that its sibling Windows app, VMware Workstation, is the industrial-strength emulator for Windows and Linux. Competitor Parallels Desktop may be the best way for less technical users to run one or more Windows apps on the Mac desktop, but it's also subscription-based, a payment model that many users prefer to avoid. VMware is an app that you buy once and can use forever. For IT managers, developers, and for most tech-savvy users, VMware remains the best choice for virtualization on a Mac.
- $79.99
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $39.99
- $0.00
- $139.99
Price and Getting Started
Like Parallels Desktop, VMware Fusion comes in two versions: Basic and Pro. The Basic version, priced at $79.99 ($49.99 upgrade price), lacks the developer-level fine-tuning options in the Pro version, which costs $159.99 ($119.99 upgrade). A Basic Fusion license works on all the Macs you own; the Pro license works on three Macs. The Pro version integrates closely with VMware's vSphere cloud-based hypervisor for multiple virtual machines (VM) across a whole enterprise.
To get started with VMware Fusion, you'll probably need an installation USB stick, CD, or disk image for the emulated guest system that you want to install. Fusion lets you create an emulated system from a disc or disc image, by migrating an existing Windows system across a network (you'll need to install VMware's migration software on the existing system), or by importing a Boot Camp-based system on your Mac.
Unlike Parallels, VMware doesn't offer download links for Windows, Linux, or other systems, so you'll need to acquire these systems on your own. As with Parallels, when you install Windows you can choose an automated option that asks you for your Windows activation code and your user name. After you enter that information, Fusion sets up your system without further interaction.
VMware vs. the Competition
When you launch a newly installed emulated Windows system in VMware Fusion, your experience will be very different from what Parallels users experience, with pros and cons on both sides. On a high-end 2015 MacBook Pro, VMware took one full minute to boot a Windows 10 guest system, compared to 35 seconds for both Parallels and free competitor VirtualBox.
and VirtualBox boots faster partly because it doesn't set up printing and other integration functions while booting. VirtualBox is free, open-source software, so it's not surprising that it doesn't offer all the conveniences of its paid competitors.
Parallels boots faster partly because it emulates the Fast Start BIOS option supported by some real PC hardware. It's also slightly quicker than both VMware and VirtualBox when opening a Windows app after the Windows system boots. The difference isn't dramatic, but it's usually noticeable. As for its negative aspects, Parallels starts up with almost every available integration option turned on, even the ones that are more annoying than helpful. This includes the option that puts shortcuts on the emulated Windows desktop to everything that's on your Mac desktop, even if those Windows-app shortcuts don't actually do anything because of differences between the Windows and Mac file structures.
If all you want to do is run the Windows version of Excel or some Windows-only software like CorelDraw, Parallels makes things easy by automatically setting up your Windows system so that you can print to your Mac-connected printer. If you're a developer or software-tester, you probably want your Windows system more isolated from your Mac host, and you'll appreciate that VMware expects you to enable printer-sharing and other integration features manually. You can fine-tune VMware, Parallels, and, to a much lesser degree, VirtualBox to achieve the same levels of integration between a Windows guest and host Mac, but—as an advanced user—I prefer VMware's hands-off style.
For gaming and graphics-intensive apps, VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop both support DirectX 10 graphics, while VirtualBox only goes up to DirectX 9. This isn't VMware's or Parallels' fault, however, since macOS doesn't support the OpenGL (Open Graphics Library) features required to run DirectX 11 or later. The only way to get DirectX 11 or 12 graphics on a Mac is to install Windows on a Boot Camp partition.
Vmware Fusion
Emulation and Other Features
Parallels Or Vmware Fusion
Like its rivals, VMware Fusion can run any of a wide variety of emulated guest systems. Most Mac users will probably use an emulator to run a Windows system—anything from Windows 95 to Windows 10—but you can also run emulated OS X and macOS instances, almost any Linux version, or Solaris, FreeBSD, NetWare, and dozens of other supported systems. Advanced users can run any of the dozens of systems that aren't officially supported, like IBM's OS/2 or even Steve Jobs' ancient NeXTSTEP and OpenStep systems that evolved into today's macOS. Some of these unsupported systems rely on driver software created by individual programmers, and setup guides are easy to find online.
Like its rivals, VMware Fusion uses the now-standard emulator interface, with thumbnail images of one or more VMs (emulated systems) displayed in a Virtual Machine Library window. You can either specify the VM that you want to launch when Fusion opens or select one from the library window. Again as with other emulator apps, you can run the emulated guest system in a window on the Mac desktop, in full-screen, or with VMware's Unity Mode, which displays a single Windows app from the guest system in a window on the host Mac system. The same options are available with OS X and macOS guest systems, but Unity mode isn't available in Linux guest systems—a rare instance of a feature that Parallels and VirtualBox support but that VMware now lacks.
For developers, VMware Fusion offers a cornucopia of riches. Any VMware virtual machine can be used on Windows, Linux, or the Mac, and its configuration can be fine-tuned to emulate almost any combination of old and new hardware. Reliable, robust networking is available with almost all emulated systems. Hundreds of prebuilt VMware Appliances are downloadable from the VMware Solution Exchange on VMware's web site; many more are available from third-party sites. For Windows and Linux, VMware offers a VMware Workstation Player app that's free for personal use. This app can't create VMware machines, but it can run existing ones.
Fusion Is Flexible
VMware Fusion won't win any medals for speed, but it ranks first in flexibility, power, and developer-friendly and enterprise-level features. Home and office users will prefer Parallels Desktop, despite its tendency to clutter up your Mac with menus and features you probably don't want. Technically adept penny-pinchers will choose the free VirtualBox. VMware Fusion is an essential tool for developers, IT managers; computer hobbyists; and anyone who prefers solid reliability, buy-once licensing, and software designed to do exactly what you want it to do, no more, no less. VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop are Editors' Choices for advanced and everyday users, respectively.
VMware Fusion (for Mac)
Bottom Line: VMware Fusion is a reliable virtualization solution with deep customization options and integration features for running Windows or almost any other OS on a Mac. It's slower than competitor Parallels Desktop in testing, but it has a better-balanced feature set.
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.blog comments powered by