Switched back to Parallels from VMware

This thread was moved from " Installation and Configuration in Mac OS".
Alicia

I was a long time user of Paralells, from the early betas but found that the memory and CPU footprints were too heavy on my MacBook Pro. VMware Fusion definitely provided a better experience in this area as well as their "first mover" support for Expose.

I've reinstalled the latest version (5160) and am very pleased with the performance improvements as well as how well Expose/Coherence integration has evolved.

VMware Fusion still doesn't do network printing when using Shared Networking (NAT) and while that isn't a show-stopper for me, it is something they really need to fix. I've never had a problem printing to networked printers with Parallels, so I am glad to have that capability back. I also experience problems in Fusion with screen rendering (windows not being redrawn quickly) and consistency of mouse clicks being detected.

The competition between the two vendors has driven incremental improvements in each product and they both have their place, but for now, for me, Parallels is the one that is working best.

 

i am glad to hear that
I joined the VM wear beta too but could not be bothered with it

I just stayed with Parallels with Win XP sp2 which is a very very reliable work horse

Hugh W

 

I have done the same and off the bat had issues with VMware Fusion. People complain constantly about how bad Parallels is and how they are going to make the switch to Fusion. Well if everyone would just go look at the VMware forums they'd see that VMware experiences their own daily issues so it's not perfect like everyone keeps saying.

For me, Parallels fits the ticket and I can deal with the little issues. People expect Parallels to make this product perfect. Well with so many variables that's an impossibility. I use my VM extremely hard using all Adobe CS2, Flash and other many other programming and network tools and have never had issues that arise on these forums.

It's a VM and not true machine. That alone should make you realize you'll have limitations and you should rely mostly on a strong and stable primary OS/system.

That's my two cents worth!!

 

I have the bad exprerience too with Fusion, the early beta's worked well but the lastest verions where hell.
Parallels get better every version... and now it works now

 

With all the negative posts on here about Parallels version 3 and Parallels lack of support I am still using version 2 which does everything I want (except snapshots). I'm not a windows power user by any means. I just use it for the few things I require that only has a windows version, so it works fine for me and isn't worth the $$ or headaches of upgrading.

Eventually though some Windows or Mac update will kill it and I'm not sure how long Parallels will support it, so I'll probably be switching or upgrading eventually.

I use VMWare Workstation at work (Windows inside Windows) to test applications and its a rock solid program. I tried Fusion trial version 1 and it did seem pretty solid for a few hours... until it crashed Windows and froze the Mac solid trying to simply run Yahoo messenger. Freezing the Mac is something Parallels has never done. Test over.

I don't buy version 1 of anything so I'm staying put for now waiting to see where I will spend my money next. Whether Fusion will become as solid as its VMWare Workstation cousins (I suspect it will) or will Parallels gets its act together, which it seems to be doing, or best scenario... will those few remaining apps put out Mac versions in which case Windows is off my Mac all together.

The race is on...

 

the upgrade saved my bacon today

they have added a dialogue box
do you really want to close Parallels?

Which will stop a badly done Mac OS shut down just like Firefox does

thank you team for implementing that suggestion

Hugh W

 

I am wondering myself, and so I appreciated this thread. I've been on Parallels before the first Mac version was final. I would say the upgrade to 3 is worth it, it was always pretty stable but 3 is a lot nicer even. That said, I'm also checking out vmware also, but I'm still not sure as far as that question goes. But for Parallels, 3 has a lot of nice features- I am glad that I made the upgrade.

 

I was very hesitant about upgrading to Parallels 3, but after some extensive testing I decided to take the jump. It was worth the upgrade time. It has a smaller footprint that 2.5 for sure, which is very nice using the laptop without a battery adapter, it seems to run faster, more USB support. It seems to be a pretty stable product.

 

I'm sort of in a similar boat. Was a prerelease Parallels user, prebought 1st version, later upgraded to 3, then put it aside and went to Bootcamp, then tried VMWare, and now I'm trying Parallels again.

Could you say which build or which version you find most reliable? I downloaded and installed 3214 (version 2.5) and also dl'd (and did not install) build 5160 (vers 3).

I'd like to do away with the Bootcamp setup on my iMac so I can have more equal access between the OS's, but I have always feared a crash of a VM and the (imagined?) loss of data.

Thanks--

 

I own both. Parallels and Fusion. Right now I'm using Parallels 5160. I wish the coherence issue would be fixed though. I used to use it alot, now I'm just using a single window.

I am more comfortable with the Parallels interface (having used it for a while now) than the Fusion interface. I just have not spent time with Fusion to gain confidence with it.

I know it's too much to ask but I sure wish there were a documented standard for virtual machine files. It would be nice to have a single VM that you could open with VM Workstation, Fusion, or Parallels.

I realize this probably will never happen, but would be nice!