General Question

cboone's avatar

Is VMware Fusion any better than Parallels Desktop?

Asked by cboone (2points) June 11th, 2008

Is it less buggy? Is the interface any better designed? Does it crash less? Et cetera.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

5 Answers

b's avatar

From what I hear: yes. Everyone I know that uses virtualization in OS X prefers Fusion. But remember, you will get better system performance if you use boot camp instead of a virtual machine.

zarnold's avatar

I agree; I’ve heard that VMware makes more efficient use of dual core CPU’s, and is thus less of a resource drain. That said, the interface of the last version I used is primitive compared to parallels – Coherence (a feature of parallels) allows pretty much seamless integration of the start menu and window panes into OS X.

I’ve been using parallels lately and it has been a bit buggy, using almost 100% of my CPU (both cores) just to perform a system update, so I’d probably recommend fusion. A good way to integrate it into OS X Leopard is to just use Spaces and set the VM to open full-screen in another space automatically, so you can switch back and forth with just a keystroke.

felipelavinz's avatar

I don’t really know how it would work on a Mac, but some time ago I tried VMWare Server and VirtualBox, on a Ubuntu (Linux) host, and VirtualBox was much better overall experience… very easy to set-up and worked really smooth (actually, I still use it, and I’ve never had any problem with it).

benseven's avatar

@Zarnold -VMWare Fusion now has a coherence mode they call ‘Unity’, and it’s improved a lot recently…

Certainly gets my vote.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther