Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Parallels Desktop For Mac Vs. VMware

Posted by timothy on from the when-it-positively-has-to-run-windows dept.

neilticktin writes "MacTech performed an exhaustive set of benchmarks comparing Parallels Desktop 4 to VMWare Fusion 2 to run Windows on a Mac. To tackle this problem, MacTech undertook a huge benchmarking project starting in December — over 2500 tests by stopwatch. The goal was to see how the recent versions of VMWare Fusion and Parallels Desktop performed on different levels of Mac hardware, using XP, Vista, 64-bit, multi-procs, games, etc. ... As usual, results vary by what's important to you."

1 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. 'Fusion' ne 'ESX' by joe_n_bloe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That would be 99.99% of home users. It's hard to conceive of an application for ESX[i] at "home," given Fusion and Workstation. ESX is heavyweight and particular in its hardware requirements, nontrivial to manage (especially with the free license), and just generally not the right thing if you don't have a spare tower server or DC handy, a full license, and someone else to pay your power bill. Although, in those circumstances, it's pretty cool.

    (A bunch of the remaining .01% are going to explain why I'm wrong now.)

    Disclaimer: I work for VMware. (And I would run ESX at home if there was a reason to.)