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."

8 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Slashdotted after 3 comments by guruevi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, apparently they shouldn't run their server in virtualization software.

    Either way, I like Parallels better because it's so much better integrated (albeit more expensive) and easier to use. It also has better support for DirectX and OpenGL than VMWare which is something I needed (OpenGL).

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Slashdotted after 3 comments by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Does VirtualBox allow you to run your BootCamp partition in a virtual machine? Last time I check it didn't.

      As far as I know, this has not changed. However, it is possible to extract the Bootcamp partition into a VDMK which VirtualBox can read. I've never done it before, so try it at your own risk.

      I must the admit that the number of times I actually boot into windows has diminished drastically

      What's this "windows" you speak of? I use VirtualBox for alternative operating systems! :-P

      Actually, I did setup one Windows 7 VM so my wife could use an educational CD she needs. Other than that, I haven't found a lot of reason to use Windows on my Mac. I imagine I would have a few more if I didn't have an older Windows XP desktop hanging around, but even that tends to run cross-platform software. (Even Microsoft Office has been successfully replaced with OpenOffice!)

      All told, the age of Windows lock-in is fading rapidly. Just about all native software these days either has a Mac version or a good Mac alternative available. Interestingly, FireFox shows markedly better graphics performance on the Mac over the PC. I haven't figured that one out yet. :-/

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  2. Most importantly, it depends on which Windows by iamacat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Both products fail miserably at running anything older than XP. VMWare still wins here, since at least it manages to install and run 98SE successfully, while Parallels install suffers from endless crashes. But even a trivial DX game like "Lose your marbles" results in a blank screen, while it works perfectly fine in VPC for Mac on 5 year old hardware. There are many older applications and games that do not run on XP. Just how hard would it be to emulate an S3 video card and SB16 so that we can run whatever we fill like in the VM?

  3. This violates VMware's EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    VMware states that you can not post benchmarks. This is why there are no benchmarks out there comparing it.

    Prepare to have your page deactivated.

  4. Sun virtualbox by MacColossus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have tested all three of these products. I like Sun Virtualbox not just for price (free) but for performance.

    1. Re:Sun virtualbox by QAChaos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      i also have always liked virtual box - i was surprised at a mac store one time - a customer asked if vmware or parallels was better and the sales person actually suggested that they try virtual box.

  5. slashdotted but anyone buying/using parallels 4 by gearloos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I couldn't read the article(/.'d) but I know from personal experience (and reading countless others testimony) that Parallels 4 is a humongous heap of manure. I do own Parallels 3 and 4 but never looked back after purchasing VMware 2. When Parallels sold me the upgrade to 4.0 I backed up 4 virtual machines I had (thankfully) then proceded to spend the next 4 days trying to get it to run ANY of them. The first attempt at each upgrade to v4, following Parallels explicit insructions, resulted in total destruction of the virtual machine(unrecoverable with no way to downgrade it back to v3 to use again). I sent in about 5 support requests that are still TO THIS DAY unanswered from last November. As stated before,the article is slashdotted but I don't actually care what the results are. Parallels can keep their products (like they did my money). I will never do business with that company again.

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  6. Re:Games? by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes.
    It works really well too. I mean REALLY well.

    Basically any game that runs under Wine currently will run under Virtual Boxes 3D hardware implementation (they used a lot of WINEs implementations for the graphics functions).
    The performance is about what you'd get running under WINE in Linux natively.

    For home use i wouldn't bother with anything other than VitualBox. No other Virtual Machine out there approaches its 3D hardware virtualisation.