Fusion VS Parallels?

Page 1 of 1 (18 items)
This post has 17 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 25
Billy Taylor | Forum Activity | Posted: Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:12 AM

I have a macbook pro with 4 gig memory and 2.53 ghz core 2 Duo.  I don't want to wait for the complete version of 4. I have been using 4 on my windows machine and it's just too cool not to use.

So Mac friends, which one to go out and buy - Fusion or Parallels?  And can you cut and paste between logos and the mac software (ie Word or pages)?

Posts 219
Dennis Miller | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:32 AM

I have used both, but when paralells released v4 and broke what was a perfectly good working app in v3, I got my money back and switched to fusion. I have been more than happy with fusion so far and yes you can cut and paste between apps/OS's. The coolest feature is the unity (fusion)/coherence (Para) mode which basically integrates both OS's into one desktop and you can run apps from either one on your mac desktop. Cool Stuff. I find myself needing Windows less and less, I have been crippling along with L4 alpha's and mainly getting by for now. There is a performance hit running L4 Windows in the VM.

Posts 29
Matthew Bookspan | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:35 AM

I would recommend searching through the forums for additional feedback.

From my personal testing, I am seeing better throughput with P5 running WinXP. However, Fusion is more reliable (I haven't crashed with it compared to P5).

I have two different VMs:

  • MBPro (mid 2009 model) 2.4Ghz/4GB RAM/Parallels 5 (latest build) + WinXP
  • iMac (mid 2008 model) 3.06Ghz/4GB RAM/Fusion 3.0.2 + Win7

I have both VMs set to take 1.5GB of RAM, 1 proc, and with the video acceleration disabled.

Hope this info helps.

Matthew

Posts 255
Pat Flanakin | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:35 AM

I have a MB Pro and using VM3 with L4 since December.  No complaints, but I would advise you to jump to 8GB RAM if your model allows, just as everything is much smoother and responsive with plenty of RAM plate to work with.

I am looking forward to the native Mac version of L4, but I am okay for now.  I remember you follow the tips in the wiki to tweak performance in Windows through VM.

Posts 2542
Forum MVP
John Fidel | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:58 AM

I am using Parallels 5 with winXP and have no problems. I cannot speak for the other.

Posts 43
David Kim | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 9:21 AM

I have the exact same specs Macbook pro with 4 GB RAM & 2.53 core Duo. It was a big headache in the beginning trying to figure out which one works better ... Fusion vs. Parallel. Make the long story short, I opted for Parallel and I am very happy with the performance. Can't speak for others ... after trying to tweak each program ... I just had a better performance with Parallel. I followed all the recommendation for both programs from the forum. But, I found that Parallel was better for me. I also agree ... more ram is good ... I am definitely waiting to upgrade to 8GB RAM when the RAM prices come down.  Blessings.

Posts 1539
Terry Poperszky | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 9:22 AM

Billy Taylor:
So Mac friends, which one to go out and buy - Fusion or Parallels?  And can you cut and paste between logos and the mac software (ie Word or pages)?

 

The answer to both questions is YES. Stick out tongue

 

The Fusion/Parallel race is a perfect example of competition in action. Either time one pulls ahead, the other releases new features and greater speed. Currently Parallels 5 is ahead (barely), but Fusion just released a minor update yesterday, so who knows. I personally have run them both and settled on Fusion. But that is mainly because I am in the industry and VMWare is a large part of what I do on a daily basis.

 

 

Posts 188
Si | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 9:28 AM

Billy,

 

Though I have not actually used Parallels, I went with Fusion because it had lower system requirements to run the program (at least the last time I looked), and I heard time after time from various individuals that Fusion was a better program.  Fusion has worked perfectly for me from the very start.  It is easy to install/setup and easy to use.  Copy and paste from Mac OSX to Windows XP and vice versa works seamlessly.  Though I needed to do a little tweaking to run Logos 4 (see the Logos forums for the proper Fusion setup), once the adjustments were made L4 works well on Windows XP SP3 with 1 Gig Ram allocated to the virtual machine.  L4 is not blazing fast in this setup, but works well.  I am hoping to run L4 natively in Mac OSX once the L4 Mac engine is stable.      

Posts 184
lostlogik | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 9:42 AM

I'm from the Parallels camp ;) using 5 on my MB white. Very happy, running XP in Crystal mode, so it all looks very Mac like. Very happy with it, its ease of installation setup and running. Can't complain about anything, well, wish I had 4GB rather than 2, but that's another story. Trouble with Logos is any cash you think you have spare for something suddenly gets sucked up by another book or two (yet another story).

Posts 10826
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 10:32 AM

Billy Taylor:
So Mac friends, which one to go out and buy - Fusion or Parallels?

I have used both in various releases. I currently use P-5, but I don't think you will go wrong with either one.

Posts 844
Dewayne Davis | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:13 AM

I am using P5 without any problem. I used Parallels a couple years ago and switched to Fusion because it was much better. But When Parallels 5 came out and got such rave reviews, I downloaded the trial and found it to work great. I bought it because they offered me the upgrade price because I was a Fusion customer. Kind of a competition crossgrade / upgrade. But I never tried Fusion 3, because I was afraid it would mess up my Fusion 2 installation, which held my financial software. And since I liked P5 so much, I never had a reason to try it at all. I am however, strongly considering going to 6 Gigs ram. 8 Gigs is just too expensive right now. Either way, I don't think you can go wrong.

“... every day in which I do not penetrate more deeply into the knowledge of God’s Word in Holy Scripture is a lost day for me. I can only move forward with certainty upon the firm ground of the Word of God.”

Posts 12
Pierre-David Pfister | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:53 AM

Has anybody tried VirtualBox?

Posts 4
John Richards | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 3:01 PM

I've tried Virtual Box under Linux but haven't been able to get L4 to start.

Posts 505
Michael Kares | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 3:11 PM

I used virtual box on Mac and L4 ran as good as could be expected for a VM

Posts 12
Pierre-David Pfister | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 3:14 PM

I've installed L4 in VirtualBox 3.1.4 on my Mac. L4 started, and it's now downloading & indexing resources...

Posts 455
David Buckham | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 7:04 PM

how difficult is virtual box to set up? i have it but haven't used it yet.

all about Christ,

David Buckham

all about Christ,

David Buckham

http://thinkspurlove.blogspot.com

 

 

Posts 88
Rus Howard | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 7:35 PM

I am using P5 with Windows 7 - absolutely no problems, but can't wait till I can dump P% and Windows 7 after the full Mac version is up and running.

Rus Howard

Posts 12
Pierre-David Pfister | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:38 PM

David Buckham:

how difficult is virtual box to set up?

In my opinion: very easy.

Page 1 of 1 (18 items) | RSS