Parallels 5 versus VMWare Fusion 3

Page 1 of 1 (15 items)
This post has 14 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 8
Mark Markster | Forum Activity | Posted: Thu, Dec 31 2009 11:34 PM

I have found that Parallels 5 is far superior to VMWare Fusion 3 when accessing Logos 4

The features of Logos 4 for Mac are not at the level of the Windows version, so I pretty much only use the Windows version of Logos 4. However, even with 1.5 GB allocated to Windows (4 GB total on the Macbook), the VMWare Fusion 3 environment  was painfully slow when using Logos 4 - all my other Windows programs were fast but Logos 4 for Windows would take 60-80% of the CPU under Windows XP SP3. Logos stated that the performance is even worse if I had upgraded to Windows 7.

I then purchased Parallels and everything works fast enough (it can ALWAYS be faster).

 

Posts 692
Otto S. Carroll | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 1 2010 12:38 AM

I haven't had any problems with Logos performance using VMware Fusion 3. And performance was significantly improved when I upgraded to Win-7 from XP. The performance is something I can live with until the Mac version catches up.

__________

15" rMBP 2.6 GHz i7 | 16 GB RAM | 1.0 TB Flash Drive | OS X 10.12.3 | Logos 7.0 (7.3.0.0062)

Posts 1931
Donovan R. Palmer | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 1 2010 1:16 AM

The Logos guys say that at present Parallels has the edge over Fusion. Watching the VM competition, it seems to swing back and forth. I am currently using Fusion 3.0 and everything run well and even better than I expected from something as demanding as Logos 4.

Posts 248
Daniel Arnott | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 1 2010 5:17 AM

SInce setting Parallels to use 2 gig of ram the improvement in load times and searching is HUGE! Using a Macbook with 3 gig and it runs a treat. When I first used it I found it sluggish but the ram increase has solved it.

 

 

Posts 23
Christian Sofussen | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 1 2010 7:39 AM

Anybody tried out some of the free VM's, like Virtualbox from SUN? Virtualbox seems like a good alternative to the commercial VM's, but i haven't tried those out, and i have only tried to run Ubuntu on the machine. Performed very well, but making folders accessible between the VM and my MB Pro is a bit difficult (might just be me doing something wrong).

Posts 255
Pat Flanakin | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 1 2010 9:14 AM

In terms of financial considerations, I am contemplating either upgrading to VM3, or parallels 5, then also to Win 7 from XP.  That would cost around $200.  If the Mac version were up to speed, then I would save that money; however, reality is otherwise.

I see currently VM3 is good enough till Mac catches up, so that is only $40 to upgrade from VM2 (I am using VM3 trial right now).

What I don't like is that Logos 4 required me to have all SPs installed for XP.  I can tell you when you run an XP machine without a single SP, it is superfast.  They throw a bunch of junk in those SPs and I think it is designed partly to make you want the next OS from Windows in some shape or form.  Software companies have to devise a way to ensure customers will not get too comfortable and satisfied with the current version of software, so I think updates (not upgrades) necessarily bulk up your system and slow things down.

That is why I am wondering whether also moving to Win 7 without updating it at all from a pure install would be fastest.

Thoughts?

Posts 692
Otto S. Carroll | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 1 2010 9:26 AM

In my case, there was a significant increase in performance of all my Windoze applications (including Logos 4) when I upgraded from XP SP-3 to Win-7, using VMware Fusion 3. The cost of upgrading to Win-7 was well worth it because even after I move Logos to Mac, I will still need Windoze for my job and other personal applications. Over time, Win-7 may become sluggish for all the reasons XP did, but right now with all the latest updates it's still performing like new.

__________

15" rMBP 2.6 GHz i7 | 16 GB RAM | 1.0 TB Flash Drive | OS X 10.12.3 | Logos 7.0 (7.3.0.0062)

Posts 1539
Terry Poperszky | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 1 2010 9:51 AM

When I first moved to mac, I used Parallels because it was the "best", then Fusion came out and it was better than Parallels, so I switched. Now Parallels 5 is out, so I ran them side by side using my bootcamp partition. My findings? Parallels had a slight speed advantage running Win 7 (64 bit) and L4, it also seemed to handled video better in a couple of instances. My decision? There weren't enough differences between the two to shell out 50.00 to upgrade. Based on what I have seen in the past, VMWare will put out a release in a little while that will give it a slight advantage over Parallels and so on and so forth. Frankly, L4 is running so well under Fusion 3.1 that I really have no reason to switch.

 

 

Posts 6
David Harp | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 11 2010 4:15 PM

I am running fusion (not the latest version, I think) with Windows Vista (how long, O Lord & Logos?)and Logos 4 keeps spending hours and hours indexing then says - not enough hard drive space available.  Is there an EASY way to tweak my system without having to "reload" L4 and this whole process taking days to do?

Posts 82
James Ng | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 11 2010 4:48 PM

I was running VMWare Fusion 3.0 but am currently on their 3.1 Beta. The 3.1 Beta is significantly faster than their 3.0 version running Windows 7. It was noticeably faster for me for all applications...that said I run Logos 4 Mac right now simply because I'm trying to get rid of my VMs :).

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 11 2010 8:48 PM

Christian Sofussen:

Anybody tried out some of the free VM's, like Virtualbox from SUN? Virtualbox seems like a good alternative to the commercial VM's, but i haven't tried those out, and i have only tried to run Ubuntu on the machine. Performed very well, but making folders accessible between the VM and my MB Pro is a bit difficult (might just be me doing something wrong).

Oracle's "Sun VirtualBox" is a good alternative.  When virtual machine powered off, VirtualBox 3.1.6 has shared folders setting - add, modify, or remove shared folders - optionally read only.

VirtualBox bit less integrated than commercial - printer not setup automatically.  Also, VirtualBox captures keyboard and mouse - need to use keyboard character or click outside Virtual Machine to use Mac command-tab to switch applications.

For performance, like responsiveness of Windows XP with 2 GB Ram and 2 CPU's running Logos 4.0c (release candidate).  Does help to have Quad Core processor and 8 GB ram - can run Mac Alpha and PC Beta at same time.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 396
Fernando A Gonzalez | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 12 2010 1:07 PM

Has anyone compared Logos 4 under Vista v.s. Windows 7  while emulating in Parallels or VMWare Fusion?

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 12 2010 11:46 PM

Fernando A Gonzalez:

Has anyone compared Logos 4 under Vista v.s. Windows 7  while emulating in Parallels or VMWare Fusion?

Educated hypothesis: Windows 7 faster than Vista - depends on task if noticeable (more than 10 %).

Observation: Tom's Hardware Guide compared Windows XP, Vista, and 7 on same notebook:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-notebook,2485.html

Also, more extensive testing was done comparing Vista and Windows 7:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-performance,2476.html

Likewise, PC Mag compared XP, Vista, and 7:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2355703,00.asp

Logos forum compares Windows 7 and Vista:

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/16243.aspx

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 490
R. Mansfield | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 13 2010 9:20 AM

 

Terry Poperszky:

When I first moved to mac, I used Parallels because it was the "best", then Fusion came out and it was better than Parallels, so I switched. Now Parallels 5 is out, so I ran them side by side using my bootcamp partition. My findings? Parallels had a slight speed advantage running Win 7 (64 bit) and L4, it also seemed to handled video better in a couple of instances. My decision? There weren't enough differences between the two to shell out 50.00 to upgrade. Based on what I have seen in the past, VMWare will put out a release in a little while that will give it a slight advantage over Parallels and so on and so forth. Frankly, L4 is running so well under Fusion 3.1 that I really have no reason to switch.

Regarding Bootcamp, I've noticed that when Parallels runs from the Bootcamp partition, it's noticeably slower than simply running a Windows installation installed through Parallels on the Mac side of things. Has anyone else run into this? I like having the option to boot natively into Windows (although I rarely do), but the slower performance in Parallels is disappointing.

RMansfield@mac.com
http://thislamp.com 
youtube.com/user/rfmansfield
twitter/thislamp
facebook.com/rmansfield

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 15 2010 11:06 PM

R. Mansfield:

Regarding Bootcamp, I've noticed that when Parallels runs from the Bootcamp partition, it's noticeably slower than simply running a Windows installation installed through Parallels on the Mac side of things. Has anyone else run into this? I like having the option to boot natively into Windows (although I rarely do), but the slower performance in Parallels is disappointing.

Bootcamp and older VMWare Fusion provided opportunity for Windows (re)activation since Windows detected different hardware.  Subjectively concur - similar experience with VMWare Fusion - no longer have bootcamp partition.  Also like ability to suspend virtual machine when not using bootcamp partition.

Keep Smiling Smile

Page 1 of 1 (15 items) | RSS