hi All, I just needed to say this. I have Fusion and For all the PArallel bashers. Parallels is far more feature rich then VMWAre. the only thing I will say about FUsion is that it is faster. PArallels in my opinion is feaure rich product that is much more usable. Just had to! Thanks, Sal
Nobody is arguing that Parallels has more features than Fusion. However it does no way mean that Parallels is better. Simply because feature rich Parallels has a lot of features that doesn't work well or doesn't work at all. Meanwhile what features that Fusion does have MOST seem to be very solid. Oh well this is America, so buy whatever product you like.
To imply that there are Parallels bashers implies there is no basis for the bashing. In fact many of those features are either broken or incompletely/poorly implemented. To point out after 5000 builds that these problems continue to plague the product is hardly bashing. It is recognizing the facts. But the real problem is not so much the product as it is the customer support. Perhaps it is because there are so many poorly functioning features that customer support is unable to keep up with demand. Think about that. And now they're going to go back to public betas that were such a disaster before. That created such a snarl of complaints and confusion because so many didn't know a beta solution from a production solution, and the misinformation was flowing non-stop. Oh well, let the games begin.
Preach on Dennis! SERIOUSLY, I'll say this before and I'll say this again that I think that Parallels 3.0 has been a complete disaster. From Parallels themselves false advertising about 3.0 to the poor quality of 3.0 itself. At least for me, INCLUDING THE REAL BETA OF 5060, was an EARLY BETA of 3.0 then everything would be easier to swallow. The simple fact is that Parallels is more concerned about cranking out new builds after new builds with cheesy new features that they don't give a damn if MANY of their features don't work well or they don't work at all.
Lets be rational here. I think it's fair to say that in these forums as with most other forums that discuss a particular product that it is much more likely to find a post complaining about one thing or another than to find a complementary post. I don't believe nor have I ever believed that what shows up in forums like these truly represent the state of the discussed product. The forums are helpful however they are also biased. Parallels is a fine product, and I think there have been too many overly harsh criticisms of it. Mostly from those with their expectations set too high in my opinion.
So we are supposed to expect that AFTER we PAID for a product that MANY of the product's features don't work well or don't work at all? That's just RIDICULOUS and UNACCEPTABLE.
Steveamundo.... Look, we get it. Your obviously very unhappy with parallels and Im really sorry for that. I dont know how many posts you have posted expressing it. But please, calm down.
Well, both products have their strengths and problems. As a longterm customer of Parallels Desktop (from the first public beta), I must admit that the quality of Parallels Desktop is poor and the support is nearly non-existant :-( As many posters here already mentioned, they liked Parallels but have enough with ongoing stability issues and false promises. Personally, I think Parallels is feature driven and don't look for perfect stability as VMware does. Only take a look at the official blog for the latest Beta : "As we roll through subsequent betas, we’ll be adding some other really cool, never-before-seen-anywhere features, so keep an eye on the blog for updates." They tell about features, more features, never-seen-before features ..... where is the stability ? Normally, you'll build upon a good foundation, but... I use VMware products alot in my company (ESX, Workstation on Win and Linux) and I migrated my Parallels VM's over to Fusion while it was in Beta3 ... not a single crash, only one minor problem. I don't need all this stuff like Smartselect, DirectX etc., just a stable platform to run WinXP, Novell Open Enterprise and SLES servers. Please note that these VM's are critical for me and I needed to reboot my Mac at least one time a day with Parallels (lost network connectivity).
If Parallels ever gets their act together then I'll praise Parallels just like I did before. HOWEVER sorry, until then I'll continue expressing my dissatisfaction. After all, I PAID for Parallels 3.0. GET IT, GOT IT, GOOD.
We got it a long time ago. There are people in the forums who are trying to get help from other members and staff, and I understand your frustrations but by constantly posting the same message nobody else gets the chance to benefit from the forums. Use fusion instead, and just accept thats you have lost $80. Its not the end of the world. Thanks for your cooperation
That's ironic. I spent most of yesterday building OpenSuSE in both Fusion and Parallels to get an idea of what Linux was like in Parallels since I never used Parallels for Linux virtual machines before. I wanted to get an idea how Parallels stacked up to Fusion and discovered that not only did Parallels handle the Linux VM well, it worked faster and smoother in Parallels than Fusion and I noticed my CPU fan running less and cpu utilization down more often while using Parallels. Fusion required me to compile tools, which I'm aware is not required for SLES, and I had difficulty getting vmxnet, which is supposed to improve network performance, to work at all. When I booted a fresh install of OpenSuSE in Parallels, I asked myself why I even needed to install the tools it worked so well. I installed them anyway, which installed perfectly, and was amazed at how well the vm performed that I deleted my Fusion vxd. So, in my short experience with Linux in Parallels, I'd say that the other product has issues. Keep in mind that my Linux experience with the other product is much deeper and varied. The point is, it's quite possible that ones issues may not have anything to do with the host software but rather the guest OS yet the host software gets the blame.
Yeah right. It's just Stevamundo with all of his complaints on these forums, PLEASE! I made THREE threads in the Windows discussion forum. EVERY ONE OF THESE THREADS has LEGITIMATE information in them.
Glad you like "features". But in my experience, the more "features" any one product has - be it software, cellphones or whatever - the less well any of the individual features work. Give me speed and stability over "feature-richness" any day!
If you were a rational person, your ire would be directed at the original poster of this thread, who decided to declare that Fusion is inferior to Parallels. I feel the need to join steveamundo in refuting that claim, as Parallels crashes so much as to be worse than useless for me while Fusion has been (for me) completely solid. As this is a support forum, potentially being read by prospective customers, those customers should be aware that Parallels has been unreliable for many other customers, and that Fusion is not a clear loser in this fight.
Hello everyone. Please, let us not jump to anything personal here. We want Parallels to be discussed, not any third party vendors. Please, keep discussion dwelled to Parallels primarily. In case you have a issue, please post it here or to our support. PM me if support isn't working fast enough for your benefit. Thanks
I posted a support request here. It received an utterly irrelevant reply. I also noted that your official support request page wasn't allowing me to use either of my serial numbers, claiming both were invalid despite the fact that I was cutting and pasting them from my parallels.com e-mail receipt. As such, I was not even able to make an official support request. That aspect of my post was ignored entirely. My criticisms aren't personal, but I do find it telling that Parallels staff felt no need to criticize this thread until it contained multiple people noting that Parallels is deeply flawed, and that support hasn't helped.
