Ars Technica compares Parallels 7 with Fusion 4

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Ars Technica compares Parallels 7 with Fusion 4

Rodney
I found this comparison interesting:

http://bit.ly/qfOTsH

For the features I need (well, to be honest, for the features I want).  Parallels is still my choice.

Admittedly it was a couple of years ago, but I have used both products quite a bit.  I started with Parallels (I think this was when they came out with version 3) when I bought my first Mac in 2007.   I did appreciate the fact that they included a very thorough and helpful user guide.  Although it was obviously written by someone for whom English wasn’t their first language, I thought that it was well-organized and accurate.

In 2008 when I bought my Mac Pro, VMware had just gone public and had more money than God.  The version of Fusion at the time, 1.8 I think, got good reviews, and I figured that VMware certainly had the resources to develop a great product.  It wouldn’t be much of a loss for me if VMware didn’t work out, so I gave it a try.

I did like VMware Fusion at first; it seemed fast, and it imported my Parallels VMs without a problem.  The upgrade to 2.0 brought a lot of problems, so I switched to Parallels and I’ve had no problems since.  I do less with Windows with each passing day, so I don’t know that my needs and experiences are typical.
____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Ars Technica compares Parallels 7 with Fusion 4

Doug Lerner
I'm sticking with Parallels 6. I upgraded the last two versions and never found any real increase in speed or benefits, so will sit this upgrade out. Parallels 6 is still working fine.

I did test Fusion 4 though. It kept failing at the last step of importing my Parallels virtual machines, so I gave up.

doug

On Oct 3, 2011, at 11:00 PM, Rodney wrote:

> I found this comparison interesting:
>
> http://bit.ly/qfOTsH
>
> For the features I need (well, to be honest, for the features I want).  Parallels is still my choice.
>
> Admittedly it was a couple of years ago, but I have used both products quite a bit.  I started with Parallels (I think this was when they came out with version 3) when I bought my first Mac in 2007.   I did appreciate the fact that they included a very thorough and helpful user guide.  Although it was obviously written by someone for whom English wasn’t their first language, I thought that it was well-organized and accurate.
>
> In 2008 when I bought my Mac Pro, VMware had just gone public and had more money than God. The version of Fusion at the time, 1.8 I think, got good reviews, and I figured that VMware certainly had the resources to develop a great product.  It wouldn’t be much of a loss for me if VMware didn’t work out, so I gave it a try.
>
> I did like VMware Fusion at first; it seemed fast, and it imported my Parallels VMs without a problem.  The upgrade to 2.0 brought a lot of problems, so I switched to Parallels and I’ve had no problems since.  I do less with Windows with each passing day, so I don’t know that my needs and experiences are typical.

____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Ars Technica compares Parallels 7 with Fusion 4

Nigel Stanger
In reply to this post by Rodney
On Tue Oct 4 03:00:03 2011, Rodney spake thus:
>
> I did like VMware Fusion at first; it seemed fast, and it imported my Parallels VMs without a problem.  The upgrade to 2.0 brought a lot of problems, so I switched to Parallels and I’ve had no problems since.  I do less with Windows with each passing day, so I don’t know that my needs and experiences are typical.

Funnily enough, I had pretty much exactly the opposite experience: started with Parallels (2 I think?), upgraded, everything completely and utterly broke, and so I switched to Fusion and haven't looked back :).

--
Nigel Stanger, Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND.  http://xri.net/=nigel.stanger


____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Ars Technica compares Parallels 7 with Fusion 4

@lbutlr
On Oct 3, 2011, at 17:26, Nigel Stanger <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Funnily enough, I had pretty much exactly the opposite experience: started with Parallels (2 I think?), upgraded, everything completely and utterly broke, and so I switched to Fusion and haven't looked back :).

My mom used Fusion from 1.something to 3.0. She ran two programs, Word Perfect and Lotus, to deal with some really old data. She finally gave up completely after having her virtual machine grow in size from under 3GB to over 40GB for no apparant reason. She would start over with a new install, copy her two apps and all her data and be back to under 3GB, then it would start to climb. Many calls to VMWare (more than a dozen) didn't solve the problem, and they actually said that a 40GB VM was 'normal' and couldn't figure out why she was complaining.

She bought a low end NetBook and I installed her software on it (a bit of a challenge, lemme tell you) and she's been fine ever since.

I've dealt with Parallels and VMWare Fusion and I prefer fusion, but honestly, they are both for running Windows, so how good can they be?

I had terrible results trying to run Ubuntu under Parallels though. Finally gave up.



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Ars Technica compares Parallels 7 with Fusion 4

Rodney

On Oct 4, 2011, at 4:30 PM, LuKreme wrote:

> I've dealt with Parallels and VMWare Fusion and I prefer fusion, but honestly, they are both for running Windows, so how good can they be?

In my case, good enough.  I was able to convert my Dell desktop to a VM and then get rid of the Dell hardware.  I could use Windows versions of important and expensive apps such as Dreamweaver until it was worthwhile to get Mac versions, and now I have VMs of XP, Vista, and Windows 7 that I can use to try new software and configuration settings when trying to help friends troubleshoot problems.  For my personal use, either Parallels or VMWare Fusion is worth the money, so I’m not complaining.  Someone with different requirements might come to a different conclusion.
____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Loading...