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
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