Actually, the issue came up because of the denial of any additional benefit of working on dual processors. No one would argue that this review is definitive. On the other hand, one cannot, as you imply, believe that it is altogether meaningless because it isn't the review that you would have done.
We really get that you love Parallels and believe it is now and will be far better than Fusion will ever be. You are certainly entitled to this opinion, with or without any factual basis. My original point in citing that review was to point out that the jury is not yet in, and others hold very different opinions from yours. What the review does in fact point out is that there are certain applications on which Fusion is significantly better than Parallels. And this is of value. Period. What many others have pointed out is that Parallels support is an oxymoron. I would have to agree. Does this mean that Fusion is better than Parallels? I don't think so, and I don't think the authors thought so either.
My own opinion is that it's too early in the product development cycle to be forming a fixed position. The two products actually seem more similar than different. But I suggest that everyone try both and reach their own conclusion.
Last edited: Aug 21, 2007