Recently came back to Mac, after several years of working exclusively on Windows PCs. After performing some hands-on testing with the demo versions of Parallels and Fusion, I have to say that the situation still hasn't changed much to what I knew when I last used both products. Parallels still feels the most polished product of the two in my opinion, (Fusion is still pretty good though!) and had I had unlimited funds, Parallels would be my choice. When the licensing model comes into play though, (at least in my particular case), Fusion is the logical choice. I need to run two Windows VMs on separate machines (one on my iMac and one on my MBpro), and the only product that gives me the ability to do that is Fusion (with up to three machines). I will re-iterate that in my opinion, Parallels is better but there is no way I am paying double, let alone three times the cost, when I do my job just as well paying half. I realize that most people won't need to install VMs on different machines (and therefore this is not an issue that affects the majority of Parallels' installed base); however I can turn that around by saying that if that's the case, Parallels also won't be losing significant revenue if they allow 2-3 installations on different computers using the same serial. In my case, I am not using the product I really want and Parallels are losing a sale. Lose-lose for both I guess...
