Future support for Multi processor and more RAM in Parallels ?

[Mike Boreham]

I tried the latest VMFusion and was not particularly impressed, except that it offers multiprocessor support and greater RAM allocation.

I will be quite happy to stay with Parallels if multiprocessor support and more RAM allocation are in the pipeline for Parallels. Does anyone know if this is the case?

Apologies if this has been asked before, I did search without finding an answer.

Thanks

Mike

 

[spectre]

Of course these features are in scope of future updates. Unfortunately I cannot discuss any exact versions or dates yet, but I can assure you that we are working on it.

I tried the latest VMFusion and was not particularly impressed, except that it offers multiprocessor support and greater RAM allocation.

I will be quite happy to stay with Parallels if multiprocessor support and more RAM allocation are in the pipeline for Parallels. Does anyone know if this is the case?

Apologies if this has been asked before, I did search without finding an answer.

Thanks

Mike

 

[Mike Boreham]

Thanks for prompt reply. (Not sure why the answer was "of course")

For benefit of others like me who may be tempted by the good reports of Fusion I have to say my experience of the just released version 1 on Vista Business has been very poor:

Trying to run Passmark's performance test prog with 3D graphics enabled caused the Fusion VM to crash everytime.

Running Bonjour (latest 1.04) crashed the Fusion VM

The Fusion start up sequence has some very flaky distorted stages, which clean up but don't inspire confidence.

The Vista install took several attempts for the install disk to be recognised.

The Converter tool applied to a Parallels XP VM will not run dual processors, and won't shut all the way down on its own.

Obviously my experience is not typical, but I have found Parallels much better behaved and stable all the way through to version 3 build 5060 which I am currently using on both MacPro and Macbook Pro (yes two licenses).

THE thing which is better about Fusion at the moment is the speed, because of dual processor and RAM. XP in Parallels is fast enough, but Vista in Parallels is too slow. Vista in Fusion scores about the same as XP in Parallels using the Passmarks tests. So I look forward to the multiprocessor support and more RAM in Parallels.

 

[Wally_Mac]

I've been using Parallels for almost a year now and this past month I did try Fusion. as well. To make a long story short, there are a few features that I rather like in Fusion; specifically lower CPU/Resource usage, faster startup/shutdown, more intuitive & visual USB connectivity.
But for overall features, functions and stability.... and based on what I use Windows for (on my Mac) Parallels outperforms Fusion on essentially all fronts!!