CNET Labs benchmarks Parallels and Fusion virtualization products
Whenever two options are presented, it is often a smart move to weight the pros and cons of each and make a decision based on your needs. If you need to push Windows in a virtualization environment, Daniel A. Begun at CNET Labs has benchmarked Windows Vista running in both Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion. The short of the long? If you really need to push Windows, do it in Boot Camp if at all possible. If Boot Camp is out of the question, VMware Fusion was the winner in heavy duty, multimedia tasks by a landslide, due largely in part to its support of multiple core processors (Parallels, as of this writing, only supports one core per CPU). On the flip side, however, Parallels Desktop is the only virtualization product that supports 3D gaming right now, but as a Parallels owner, I'll still vouch for running your games in Windows via Boot Camp.At the end of the CNET Labs day, both apps still have their pros and cons. Begun hails Parallels Desktop for being the more usable and intuitive of the two (and during my initial tests of both before deciding to buy, I agreed), though I had a much easier time getting non-Windows OSes installed in VMware Fusion (to this day, Parallels Desktop still won't install Ubuntu, and I have received no response as to why). Still, the moral of this particular story is that if performance is at the very top of your virtualization shopping list, VMware Fusion is, at least for now, the reigning champion. Check Begun's full article for more details on the tests and how they were performed.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
NutMac said 7:16PM on 8-20-2007
I concur. I've tried all 3 with Vista Business. Unless you have a quad with lots of RAM (mine is dual 2 GHz with 2 GB), Boot Camp is the way to go (ideally with MacDrive). Boot Camp is inconvenient yes, but it's fast, full featured, and lighter on the system resource.
Reply
Steve said 7:31PM on 8-20-2007
If you look at VMWare Fusion's features page, they clearly indicate that you can run DirectX 8.1 games in VMWare Fusion.
http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/features.html
I haven't tried the newest Parallels or Fusion for this particular function, so I can't vouche for the stability and performance. However stating that only Parallels supports 3d gaming is a bit misleading.
Reply
Michael Foord said 7:57PM on 8-20-2007
I'm new to both the Mac and Parallels. Running Office for Windows was a requirement for me getting a Mac and it works *great* under Parallels.
I'm running Parallels 3 and have just installed Ubuntu 7 without any problems whatsoever. It is definitely *not* because I know what I am doing either...
Reply
Joseph said 8:00PM on 8-20-2007
To install Ubuntu: Add a new VM, and set the VM type to Other Solaris. After you get it installed switch it back.
Reply
MxSix said 8:18PM on 8-20-2007
Awesome, I have been waiting for this.
Reply
george said 8:45PM on 8-20-2007
You can run Windows in both Fusion and BootCamp from the same partition. Not sure about Parallels.
Reply
Copeland23 said 9:51PM on 8-20-2007
I was able to install ubuntu feisty in Parallels 3.0 as ubuntu linux (no solaris trick necessary) with no issues.
I also am running a Vista Ultimate Boot Camp partition in Parallels with no issues at all.
I am anxious to see about Fusion, but Parallels has done the job well for me.
Now, let's see about getting compiz-fusion or Aero to work... get on it guys.
Reply
GrizzlyAdams said 11:07PM on 8-20-2007
Not only can VMWare Fusion run DirectX 8.x (essentially they mean they support mapping the 8.x featureset to your 3D hardware, you can run 9.0c just fine) but it supports 3D and Convergence/Unity in Windows XP & Windows 2000. (Though its not officially supported for 2K) I was doing this up through the final release candidate.
Reply
joseph Anderson said 11:14PM on 8-20-2007
My experience with Fusion contradict these findings, though my needs are somewhat specialized. I've been using parallels, for roughly 3 months. I've been happy with parallels, but thought I'd give Fusion a whirl. I have a need to virtualize window for one application... It's the element management system for a carrier grade class 5 VoIP Softswitch (MetaSwitch EMS). In parallels this application runs flawlessly at a negligible performance difference from a native wintel box.
Under fusion I noticed a very annoying lag from when I typed on the keypad till text displayed on the screen. There were also display issues... sometimes when I backspaced or deleted characters fragments or partial characters would still display. Additionally if I tried to run my EMS application in the "Unity" mode things would get pretty F*@K'd up. The mouse would register clicks half way across the screen from the cursor. There were whole regions of the screen I couldn't click on.
Other than these couple issues I liked the look of fusion it's interface, options... etc.
For the record I was using a Macbook pro, 2 gig ram (768mb allocated), WinXP SP2.
Reply
Kelmon said 2:25AM on 8-21-2007
To begin with I'll echo what others have said: the latest Ubuntu installs just fine under Parallels since version 3.
My issue with the article from CNet was that it was pretty useless. Not only did they not test general Office performance (I'm not crazy enough to expect virtualised Windows to offer better performance for games or multimedia) but their test system was an 8-core Mac Pro. Seriously, who has one of those? Most Macs are dual-core only so why didn't they test performance using one of these? Absolutely useless in helping me see whether Fusion is faster than Parallels.
Reply
Stephen Waits said 3:18AM on 8-21-2007
Love VMWare.. they've been around the block. On the other hand, props to Parallels for beating the big guy to the market and stepping up to the competition.
Anyway, a free, albeit considerably less featured, alternative can be found at http://www.virtualbox.org/ - I've used this and it works pretty well.
Still, I jumped on the early adopter price of VMWare and never looked back.
Reply
Hervé Sainct said 8:24AM on 8-21-2007
I too am surprised that the supposed "serious reviewers" at CNET just blatantly forgot the free Virtualbox :-(
Reply
Copeland23 said 12:20PM on 8-21-2007
In my Vista Ultimate BootCamp Parallels 3.0, I use Office 2007 for all business activity (Outlook to corporate Exchange, XL and Word, Access with ODBC... all of that) with very good performance results on my MacBook Pro 2.16 with 2GB. It is of course not as speedy as BootCamp native, but performs very well -- I don't have any complaints.
And I echo -- seriously -- who has one of those?
Reply
Stephen Lang said 12:27PM on 8-21-2007
Crossover is great for those who just need to run 1 or 2 Windows apps for work (non-graphics intensive). It even runs Office pretty well.
It even runs Starsiege Tribes very well. I know that's not saying much in terms of graphics, but it's still a fun game with lots of players.
Reply
Richard said 4:44AM on 9-04-2007
I'm curious how crossover compares to these other solutions - anyone out there have data.
I run a small standalone program for work, and running it under crossover (on a 2.0 GHz iMac with 1Gb RAM) is significantly faster than either Bootcamp or Parallels, mainly due to start-up times, and under Parallels, reduced system resources being needed.
Reply