The short story is that in most cases, Parallels runs a solid 14-20 percent faster than Fusion, except in the rather limited scenario of running Windows XP 32-bit on two virtual processors. Even though I still have Parallels on one Mac, I will probably try VMWare on my iMac Pro. Parallels is a very polished product but I don't want to pay $100 per year just to avoid the limitation they activated in version 12.1. MacTech tested Parallels Desktop 3.0 for Mac Build 5160 and VMware Fusion 1.0 Build 51348. All tests were done on clean host systems with new installations of Mac OS X 10.4.10 and Office installations and included all of the most up-to-date patches.
Since buying my first Intel Mac in 2006, I have used Parallels Desktop for virtualization. I used it mainly for running Windows for when I needed to either test something or run an important application in Windows. Since last year, I have been running Mac VMs in Parallels to build packages, to test package installs through Self Service, and test policies and configuration profiles before making them live. This works well for the most part, but because of some unresolved problems with running Mac VMs in Parallels, I an contemplating a change to VMware before my Parallels Pro subscription comes up for renewal in September. To all the Mac admins to run Mac VMs, which do you think is better to use? Parallels, or VMware? I have seen a lot of demos at JNUC, and other places where the presenter was using VMware, and that has me curious about making a change.
Ironically, it's one of the biggest decisions you make when you get a Mac: How should I run Windows on it? Parallels or Fusion? An exhaustive battery of benchmarks by MacTech reveals a clear winner.
The short story is that in most cases, Parallels runs a solid 14-20 percent faster than Fusion, except in the rather limited scenario of running Windows XP 32-bit on two virtual processors.
Parallels Or Vmware For Mac
Advertisement
Overall, running 32-bit Windows OSes with a single virtual processor, Parallels is 14 percent faster; with two virtual processors, Parallels is 20 percent faster with Vista, while Fusion is 10 percent faster with XP; and for 64-bit Vista, Parallels is 15 percent speedier. Depending on the task, the numbers vary—like transcoding MP3s can be up to 30 percent faster on Parallels.
Advertisement
Parallels Or Vmware Fusion For Mac 2017
MacTech's tests are ridiculously comprehensive, spanning multiple machines with tons of different applications—the whole them took a couple months—so if you want the full, chart-heavy breakdown, head over there: [MacTech]