First off, I have always been quite happy with Parallels and am a "paid up" user. But yesterday, I download Fusion to give it try. I was astounded that Fusion imported my Parallels XP VM with ease. I didn't have to install anything other than the Fusion Tools. Even Kaspersky came thru and runs fine, as did everything! That being said, I noticed that when set up as identically as possible, that Parallels was using 30% of the CPU, with just FireFox beta 3.5 running, but doing nothing. While under identical conditions, Fusion was was using only 4% of the CPU. Also, Parallels was using 700+ Meg of "real" RAM, while Fusion was only using 68 Meg of "real" RAM. What's going on here? What am I missing??? Is Fusion that much more efficient, as it appears to be for me anyway??? I can see no difference in speed when running XP apps however. Both Parallels and Fusion seem pretty the same to me. But it sure seems like Fusion uses far less system resources to accomplish what Parallels does, at least according to "Activity Monitor". Please advise... John
Nevermind as I answered my own question. I was showing just my processes in activity monitor. When I switched to all processes, I saw that Fusion had another process under launchd showing that it was using almost the same CPU and ram as was Parallels. I'm glad I thought to do that as I was ready to switch to Fusion just because of that. I will now continue to stay with Parallels as I've never had a problem or a crash with it.
