Parallels vs Fusion

Just as a quick taste, I've been testing both VMWare Fusion and Parallels 3.0 on a 2 processor (8 cores) 3.0GHz Power Mac with 8 GB RAM, and have so far not been very impressed with Fusion, at all. I like VMWare (a lot TBH) but Parallels has left them standing on speed, features and 3d.

I shall post more later.

i havn't used VMWare but i have used parallels and i was impressed with it

Parallels on a MacBook Pro gets my vote too.

Parallels on a MacBook Pro gets my vote too.

 

+1

 

Also parallels is the more mature product of the two.

Parallels on a MacBook Pro gets my vote too.

+1 from me

+1 from the network manager

+1 from the head whos macbook pro we just installed it on.

Parallels on my MacBook Pro works pretty good can't complain

 

Ross

I used both parallels and Fusion. During the beta stages of Fusion I preferred parallels, but since its release as version one I much prefer Fusion.

Fusion for me (although never used parallels so who am I to judge)

 

But no Really like fusion (on my macbook)

Parallels are apparently working on a server version of their app.

You can run both Parallels and Fusion together but only when Parallels is started first.

 

I think its that way around.

 

So you could run both together and decide.

I'm running parallels on my macbook, very fancy intergration with Windows, just lacking decent support for some linux stuff at the moment. I hear fusion plays nice with linux, but not had chance to test it yet.

Apparently you can download pre-created VMS of linux installs from the Parallels site.

On a slight tangent...

 

In 10.5 Server - Apple have changed the EULA so that you can virtualise the software, however, only on Apple branded hardware.

 

As we all know Microsoft get beaten from pillar to post about their working practices. But come on Apple(!) let us install the Server software on our own kit, it's technically possible - and some of us - be it by budget, sponsorship or policy constraints - don't want to/can't buy the hardware but could do with the server software in school.

 

We shouldn't be railroaded into purchasing kit unnecessarily when relatively large budgets have already been spent on the necessary PC network infrastructure, which could easily support a VM Mac Server.

On a slight tangent...

 

In 10.5 Server - Apple have changed the EULA so that you can virtualise the software, however, only on Apple branded hardware.

 

As we all know Microsoft get beaten from pillar to post about their working practices. But come on Apple(!) let us install the Server software on our own kit, it's technically possible - and some of us - be it by budget, sponsorship or policy constraints - don't want to/can't buy the hardware but could do with the server software in school.

 

We shouldn't be railroaded into purchasing kit unnecessarily when relatively large budgets have already been spent on the necessary PC network infrastructure, which could easily support a VM Mac Server.

 

You have a point, but flip what you're saying around and the advantage for those who have an xserve/xraid or have the money to purchase one is even greater.

 

Parallels no doubt are/will be working on a server virtualization for the xserve. Mainly because Apple won't be pissed about it. But never in a million years will they allow OS X server virtual machines on Dell x86 hardware for instance. Or OS X server as a VI3 guest OS.

 

A parallels product that works similar to ESX on the xserve, plus maybe an updated xserve model with additional SAS disks would be a great investment and i think would work very well - if only to run multiple instances of os x. I think it's a big step to have a server virualization hypervisor for the xserve. It's what I've been wanting Apple to allow VMWare, Xen or Parallels to do for ages. It's not Apple's fault you haven't got the money for an Xserve - they're a business after all they want to shift more of their excellent xserve hardware. Plus with the door now open to the virtualization vendors my main whinge about the way we can use the multicore power of the xserve is removed. So I've got no complaints.

The problem is that they *have* tested a good amount of their OSes for the last 4 version on a variety of hardware from different manufacturers as well as Apple built versions and it works.

 

They have even admitted it.

 

Having previously run OSX under non-Apple hardware myself it is fine (along as you accept certain limitations) but that project was stopped by Apple, and worked out beneficial to the cause as we now have Apple using intel architecture and allowing dual boot machines.

 

The reasons behind *not* wanting to run Apple software on kit built by others is purely financial. They have tried it before remember. Who else shudders at the though of the clones? That was the toe in the water,which was badly managed all round and nearly put the final nail in the coffin for Apple (which would have been a loss, as Apple are still one of the hardest pushing R&D and innovative companies out there!)

 

Realistically, if you want to virtualise then you are looking at Windows or *nix, not anything running OS X Server or anything running on Apple kit without some major bespoke work (it has been done before but by serious institutes and companies and mainly by ripping apart code ... definitely not out of the box!)

The problem is that they *have* tested a good amount of their OSes for the last 4 version on a variety of hardware from different manufacturers as well as Apple built versions and it works.

 

They have even admitted it.

 

Having previously run OSX under non-Apple hardware myself it is fine (along as you accept certain limitations) but that project was stopped by Apple, and worked out beneficial to the cause as we now have Apple using intel architecture and allowing dual boot machines.

 

The reasons behind *not* wanting to run Apple software on kit built by others is purely financial. They have tried it before remember. Who else shudders at the though of the clones? That was the toe in the water,which was badly managed all round and nearly put the final nail in the coffin for Apple (which would have been a loss, as Apple are still one of the hardest pushing R&D and innovative companies out there!)

 

Realistically, if you want to virtualise then you are looking at Windows or *nix, not anything running OS X Server or anything running on Apple kit without some major bespoke work (it has been done before but by serious institutes and companies and mainly by ripping apart code ... definitely not out of the box!)

 

I agree that it is a business decision rather than any technical limitations.

 

But i don't think either Xen or lavasoft aren't up to the task of creating a Xensource or ESXserver-esque hypervisor for the xserve. I'm assuming the intel xserves support hardware VT so I don't see there'd be major work that is beyond any of the companies in this space. Or maybe I'm missing the point

 

Sure they'd need Apples cooperation. But if the end result is more xserves are shifted whether they run OSX, Windows 2003 or solaris....why wouldn't they cooperate and eventually support people who run osx server instances on the new xserve hypervisor. One of the problems with selling the xserve is that a lot of apple customers don't see the need for it because they see it as a niche product. A virtualization layer would maybe change these customers focus - and the virtualization capabilties wouldn't need to be that advanced either if it's going to be underaking smb workloads.