Parallels or Fusion on New 13" MBP

[TangoJuliet]

I had tried each a long time ago when I got my iMac. I booted into windows maybe once or twice and just dumped it after a while.

Now that I just got my new MBP I'd like to have the option to go into windows as I never know when I may need to on the go. Has there been a resounding consensus on which one is better of the two? I won't need to do any gaming probably just a couple apps that are windows only. Thanks!

 

[Kmax82]

For me, it's Fusion all the way. The new 3.1 is blazing IMO and really fits well with OS X. Much better UI experience.

 

[PCTC2]

VMware is a little more customizable, having the same backbone as other VMware products in the background (such as scripting). I'm sure Parallels has some stuff like that too, but haven't found it yet.

I actually have both on my 17" MBP and I prefer VMware Fusion for most of my day to day tasks, especially if you use Unity/Coherence. However, it's been benched that Parallels is faster in 3D acceleration, but I haven't tested that yet. We'll have to see.

 

[Patranus]

I find that I really like the VMWare solution.

It is great to just have it open in a space and then switch spaces between OSX and Windows. Couldn't get this to work with Parallels.

 

[Ka0t1x]

VMWare. I tried Parallels, but its just not the same. You can even launch a VM silently in the background (Linux server, anyone?).

 

[Cable God]

Fusion. That is all.

 

[TangoJuliet]

Cool, looks like Fusion is the winner. I'll download the trial and take it for a spin (again). Its been awhile since I first used it but I'm sure its pretty much the same experience.

 

[doh123]

VirtualBox is great for free... but VMware Fusion is much better in performance... and if you have a .edu email address you can buy it with an academic discount and save a bunch.

 

[PricklyPete]

I've been using Parallels...and it is working well now in version 5 with the Windows XP vm I have. That being said, I have not tried Fusion, so I don't have a comment regarding that. The post above about loading Fusion in one Space sounds great.

 

[TangoJuliet]

Whats the best way to install it? Install windows via bootcamp and then install fusion or vice versa?

 

[Patranus]

Whats the best way to install it? Install windows via bootcamp and then install fusion or vice versa?

Doesn't matter but I would probably install windows via bootcamp and then run VMWare.

Really depends on your goal. If you are going to install Windows into a image you won't use bootcamp. If you want to be able to run only windows then you have to use bootcamp.

 

[ScottSwing]

Do any of them have DX10 and 11 support?

 

[TangoJuliet]

Doesn't matter but I would probably install windows via bootcamp and then run VMWare.

Really depends on your goal. If you are going to install Windows into a image you won't use bootcamp. If you want to be able to run only windows then you have to use bootcamp.

I want to use windows in a space so thats why I'm going with Fusion; otherwise I'd just bootcamp it. I was just curious as to which way I should initially install it. Last time I did a bootcamp install and then installed Parallels so I'm going to go that route again.

 

[Kmax82]

I want to use windows in a space so thats why I'm going with Fusion; otherwise I'd just bootcamp it. I was just curious as to which way I should initially install it. Last time I did a bootcamp install and then installed Parallels so I'm going to go that route again.

Do you need/want to be able to boot natively into Windows? If not, then just install it natively in VMWare. If you're going to be booting natively into Windows a lot, then install via BootCamp and use VMware.

I find that it's slower to use BootCamp'd partitions via VMWare or Parallels.

 

[TangoJuliet]

Do you need/want to be able to boot natively into Windows? If not, then just install it natively in VMWare. If you're going to be booting natively into Windows a lot, then install via BootCamp and use VMware.

I find that it's slower to use BootCamp'd partitions via VMWare or Parallels.

nope, don't really need to boot into it natively. I guess I should just install windows through VMWare then, right?

 

[Patranus]

nope, don't really need to boot into it natively. I guess I should just install windows through VMWare then, right?

Correct.

 

[TangoJuliet]

Which version of windows is best with this mac - 7 or XP? I have both of them.

 

[Kmax82]

I think that XP is still a little easier on RAM usage, so if you're planning on running it regularly in the background then I would use XP. However, if you don't mind the extra RAM usage.. Fusion 3.1 works pretty much just as fast with 7 vs XP.

 

[TangoJuliet]

I think that XP is still a little easier on RAM usage, so if you're planning on running it regularly in the background then I would use XP. However, if you don't mind the extra RAM usage.. Fusion 3.1 works pretty much just as fast with 7 vs XP.

Thanks, I'll stick with XP then.

 

[wyamarus]

Here's a consideration if you use shared network storage.

Running natively dual-booting with BootCamp lets you write NTFS partitions safely. O&O makes a pretty good installable FS driver that will give you the capability,but it costs $$. You also have to be using Windows natively to be able to use Ximeta iSCSI drives if they have NTFS partitions. Their driver doesn't work with the Mac NTFS driver or the versions of the O&O driver that I've tried under VMware/Paralels virtualization. Not just a Mac problem, it affects most *nixes as well.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

Another vote for Fusion. 3.1 is very fast, i just upgraded to it!