Parallels 5160 vs Vmware fusion 1.0

[TheTroll]

Hey people !

 

A new version of parallels hit the world some days ago (11th september...) and it may be the time to REcompare it to vmWare fusion.

In fact, Fusion has always been considered as with "better performance but less options".

Well is it still the case with this new version ?

I did peronally install both, and despite the fact that I had some problem with shared folders with Fusion (not recognized...), it still seemed to be faster !!

 

Any comments ?

 

Regards.

[theofan1960]

Hi,

 

I use Parallels 5160 and I'm very happy with it. Build 5144 made my MacBook Pro kernel panic on VM shutdown but now everything is fine with the new build. (using Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard Build 9a527). I have tried to use Fusion but I can't get it to detect my Boot Camp partition. I will surely test both of them soon as I have to create various virtual machines for school!

[BJMoose]

Hey people !

 

A new version of parallels hit the world some days ago (11th september...) and it may be the time to REcompare it to vmWare fusion.

In fact, Fusion has always been considered as with "better performance but less options".

Well is it still the case with this new version ?

I did peronally install both, and despite the fact that I had some problem with shared folders with Fusion (not recognized...), it still seemed to be faster !!

 

Any comments ?

 

Regards.

I've had just the opposite experience, thinking Parallels is faster than VMWare. It's been many months since I've compared the two (using 5160 now). Maybe VMWare has improved. I've got to say that Parallels has been working quite well, but faster is always better if both are stable.

[josh256]

Fusion uses less CPU so in theory should be faster.. featureset isn't remotely close to Parallels however