Parallels 3.0. Build 5060 (Beta) Vs. Fusion 1.0 Final

whytyger said:
This doesn't mean that everyone must have Fusion (or four wheel drive), any more than the better integration with the Mac interface under Coherence means everyone must have Parallels. Ideally, people would make an informed, and rational, decision.
Click to expand...

Fine - but the issue came up because someone linked to an article which compared Fusion, Parallels and Boot Camp based almost exclusively on their raw performance on multicore-friendly media authoring tasks. They also used an 8-core mac, and failed to investigate whether the multi-core advantage was still there on a more typical dual core system.

In short, they drove both cars around the author's private off-road racetrack, but they didn't try to parallel park them or fill the trunk with shopping.
 
itsdapead said:
Fine - but the issue came up because someone linked to an article which compared Fusion, Parallels and Boot Camp based almost exclusively on their raw performance on multicore-friendly media authoring tasks. They also used an 8-core mac, and failed to investigate whether the multi-core advantage was still there on a more typical dual core system.

In short, they drove both cars around the author's private off-road racetrack, but they didn't try to parallel park them or fill the trunk with shopping.
Click to expand...

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:
whytyger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since you're so keen on factual bases perhaps you could flick back along the thread and point out exactly where I said that - or where I denied that dual core support would be faster for some applications? I think you may be confusing me with the guy who started this thread.

What I actually said was:

itsdapead said:
I don't think its a no-brain decision either way. Since I haven't had any terrible problems with Parallels (a suspended Windows session sometimes hangs on resume) and haven't needed to call on their their legendary support, I'm inclined to stick with them for a while longer.
Click to expand...

...not exactly fanboy ranting.

If you're running CS3 on a Mac Pro with half your total RAM allocated to the VM (leaving barely enough to do anything in OSX) then there is no doubt that Fusion will be a lot faster - I'm just questioning whether, for someone running Outlook in a VM with 256MB on a dual core MacBook (even the Cnet review acknowledged that such people would not see much difference), this will be a big selling point c.f. (currently) better Windows/OSX integration.

At the 'mo, the fact that Coherence supports dual monitors but Unity doesn't is an end-of-argument point for me (you may have different priorities). OTOH Fusion's Linux support is better (but not perfect).

A couple of months down the line, Fusion will probably support dual monitors, but by then Parallels may support dual CPUs (...and maybe able to handle a default install of the most popular Linux distro without shennanigans) , so we'll see.
 
John@Parallels said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_VMware_Fusion_and_Parallels_Desktop

Just to add some features in Parallels Server (it is the same as upcoming in September October Parallels Desktop version 4) all features are presented from VmWare plus currently having
Click to expand...

Hi John,

I have been playing with a demo of VMWare fusion (and Parallels of course) - looks like I have 5 days left to make my decision about which way to go.

Looks to me a lot like many of the features of Fusion 2 are already in Parallels (like the smart app selector) and that Parallels 4 will probably address many problems people have (personally, lack of good support for recent Linux distros) and put it on a par with Fusion 2.

I'll probably run with Parallels as it is doing a great job of my Boot Camp partition and I am comfortable with it now - like a lot of people, though, we want to know that Parallels is going to continue to get good development like Fusion seems to be - is there a "what's coming in Parallels Desktop 4" page? - one might not be a bad idea to counter some of the good press the VMWare folks are going to get.

I don't suppose you can say, but will all Parallels Desktop 3 customers get a free upgrade to Parallels Desktop 4 when it ships?

Thanks again.

Evan.
 
Recommendation, use Parallels Server for 2 month, its format compatible with upcoming PD4,
only in PS Boot Camp is not available in PD4 Boot Camp is present,
Formats will be compatible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top