Windows on Mac Q&A - Updated August 16, 2008
To be notified of new Q&As, sign up for EveryMac.com's bimonthly email list.
If you find this page useful, please Bookmark & Share it. Thank you.
Parallels is also a great alternative to a second machine for those who need a Windows app to complement their normally Macintosh-centric work experience. But Parallels goes well beyond Windows 10. To get around this, Parallels translates DirectX calls to OpenGL calls (which do work on Mac) before they are executed. This can result in a somewhat significant decrease in performance, though it may be tolerable. Overall, Parallels Desktop’s 3D engine seems to work much better for games in Windows than does Fusion’s engine. So if Windows gaming is your thing, Parallels is the one you want to use. Parallels Desktop Download Free Trial: This video is about an older version of Parallels Desktop for Mac Our latest version, Parallels Desktop. I bought the base 2012 Mac Mini last week and I need to use parallels for Sony Vegas and capture software via Xbox/PS3. It keeps lagging constantly. I am looking to return the Mac Mini and upgrade to a different desktop option. I currently have a rMBP and it runs parallels with no lag. Parallels Toolbox for Mac and Windows. 30+ tools in a lightweight, powerful, all-in-one application for Mac ® and PC. Easy to use and economical—a whole suite of tools for a fraction of the cost of individual apps, packaged in one simple interface.
What is VMWare Fusion? How does VMWare Fusion compare to Parallels Desktop for Mac?
This Q&A was 'archived' on August 16, 2008 and provides general information about VMWare Fusion and comparison to Parallels Desktop for Mac at the time it was released.
For more recent comparison of the two programs, please refer to 'How does the performance of Parallels Desktop for Mac 5 compare to VMWare Fusion 3? How does the performance compare for productivity applications? How does it compare for games?'
First announced on August 7, 2006, released in a limited beta version on or around November 3, 2006, released as a public beta on December 21, 2006, and shipped as a 'final' product on August 6, 2007, Fusion is VMWare's virtualization solution that allows one to run other operating systems 'inside' or 'alongside' MacOS X. In much the same way as Parallels Desktop for Mac, VMWare states that Fusion provides:
The ability to simultaneously run any PC OS -- Windows, Linux, NetWare and others -- on Mac OS X. Switch between operating systems by easily tabbing between applications and share data between the two operating systems by dragging and dropping files on the fly -- all without needing to reboot. What's more, you can create virtual machines and run them on other VMware products or run any VMware virtual machine on your Mac.
Leaked memos regarding the then forthcoming VMWare Fusion mostly showed features already provided by the shipping Parallels Desktop for Mac, but of particular interest to many, VMWare also promised the following:
- The ability to assign more than one processor, or more than one processor core (when available), to the program to improve performance.
- Access to physical devices from within VMWare, such as 'CD-ROM drives, video cameras, iPods, printers, and high-speed disks'.
- Support for USB 2.0 devices.
- The ability to drag and drop files between MacOS X and the guest operating system running within VMWare Fusion.
When the public beta was released VMWare listed the same features officially on the company website.
On November 29, 2006, when this Q&A was first published, EveryMac.com noted that Parallels Desktop for Mac used a single core on a dual core Mac, did not provide direct access to the physical CD/DVD-ROM drive, did not provide support for devices that require USB 2.0, and required users to share files using Parallels Tools, which is convenient, but not quite as convenient as drag and drop.
However, EveryMac.com also remarked that it was a safe bet that the programmers at Parallels were hard at work adding most, if not all, of the features that VMWare promised to the next release of Desktop for Mac. Sure enough, two days later, Parallels unveiled beta build 3036, with the ability to 'drag and drop' files between MacOS X and Windows, the ability to boot from a Boot Camp partition, a slick 'coherency' feature to 'show Windows applications as if they were Mac ones', improved graphics performance, and a slew of other improvements.
On December 21, 2006, Parallels released another beta that added support for many USB 2.0 devices, CD burning, and Boot Camp partition support, and a few days after that (December 29, 2006), released 'Beta 3' (Build 3106) with better Boot Camp and USB 2.0 support, an improved version of Transporter that made it possible to 'migrate your real Windows PC, or existing VMware or Virtual PC VMs to Parallels virtual machines', a new interface, and more.
When this Q&A was 'archived' on August 16, 2008, VMWare Fusion notably supported the ability to assign more than one processor or core to an application and Parallels Desktop for Mac did not, with the next version promised to do so, but otherwise both products are similar, high-quality and do the job of running Windows 'alongside' MacOS X admirably.
In a wonderfully in-depth comparison that should be read in its entirety, the always excellent MacTechfound:
If you want a virtualization product (that allows you to run Windows alongside Mac OS X), and you want the best performance for the types of things that we tested, then clearly you need to run XP and not Vista. Furthermore, in our tests, both VMware Fusion and Parallels performed well, and were a good user experience. That said, Parallels was somewhat faster in general than VMware Fusion for XP.
If you want the best virtualization performance for Vista, then VMware Fusion is your choice. And, if you want to keep your Mac OS X and Windows environments completely separate, VMware Fusion's design may be your better choice (And, although we didn't test it, we would expect VMware Fusion to have better multi-processor support if you really have an application that is designed to take advantage of it [other tests confirm this]). If your goal is tight integration between one or more Windows applications and Mac OS X, Parallels is the clear winner when running either XP or Vista. And, as we said before, if you want the best XP performance with the types of applications tested here, Parallels is not only faster than VMware Fusion, but it's faster than Boot Camp on average for the applications that we tested.
Parallels Desktop For Pc
Ultimately, Parallels Desktop for Mac and VMWare Fusion will continue to be improved at a rapid rate and each is available to download to try for free and you can decide which program you prefer. Site sponsor Other World Computing sells the latest versions of Parallels Desktop for Mac and VMWare Fusion.
Permalink | E-mail a Friend | Bookmark & Share | Report an Error/Typo
Suggest a New Q&A | Sign Up for Bimonthly Site Update Notices
<< Windows on Mac Q&A (Main)
EveryMac.com is provided 'as is' without warranty of any kind whatsoever. EveryMac.com, and the author thereof, shall not be held responsible or liable, under any circumstances, for any damages resulting from the use or inability to use the information within. For complete disclaimer and copyright information please read and understand the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy before using EveryMac.com. Use of any content or images without expressed permission is not allowed, although links to any page are welcomed and appreciated.
My work requires me to occasionally use Windows and Linux, as well as older versions of OS X. Fortunately, as a Mac user, I have several ways to run multiple operating systems without switching computers. In addition to OS X’s Boot Camp, I have my choice of three virtualization products for Mac: Parallels Desktop, VMware Fusion, or Oracle’s VirtualBox. Using any of those three, I can pop into another OS as easily as launching an app. Each of these products has its partisans, and I’m not going to tell you definitively which one you should choose. But I did want to explain why I’ve settled on VMWare Fusion as my go-to virtualization choice.
(By way of disclosure, I should mention that I wrote books about Fusion versions 2 and 3; it’s now at version 6. I have also been a Parallels user almost since its very first release. I have no particular allegiance to one developer or another. I just want to get my work done in the most efficient way possible, with a minimum of distraction and complication.)
I’ve seen many comparative reviews, benchmark tests, and feature checklists for these products. In its last couple of comparisons, Macworld has concluded that Parallels and Fusion are virtually equivalent, the differences increasingly minor with each revision.
VirtualBox remains an outlier. Although it looks great on paper, and the price (free) is certainly right, to me it feels rough and unfinished. More specifically, it has a user interface only a developer could love, its performance isn’t even in the same ballpark as its two commercial competitors, and it requires quite a bit of fiddling to get basic settings right—something I never have to think about with Parallels or Fusion.
OS in a box
So, what am I looking for in a virtualization environment? For starters, I’m concerned only with conventional business apps—I don’t use virtualization for gaming, 3D graphics, or anything else that would tax virtual processors or graphics cards. That means I’m not going to nitpick about the small differences in performance that might exist between one tool and the next. Furthermore, I don’t need Windows programs to appear as though they were native Mac applications (using, for example, Parallels’ Coherence mode or Fusion’s Unity view); I prefer to keep Windows in its own virtual display and to run Windows apps inside that. So many of the advanced user interface tricks that virtualization software provide are wasted on me.
Similarly, any clutter, background processes, or other doohickeys that intrude upon my normal, day-to-day Mac use are a disadvantage. Parallels, for example, automatically adds a folder of Windows applications to my Dock without my permission, so I have to remove it manually. VirtualBox installs four kernel extensions at startup, which remain loaded constantly even if I never use the app. Parallels installs just one kernel extension (unless I use the optional Parallels Access feature, which adds further background processes). But unless I explicitly ask it to, Fusion leaves absolutely nothing loaded or running when the app is closed.
Money matters
Then there’s cost. Parallels costs more than Fusion, and it’s licensed on a per Mac basis. Fusion, on the other hand, is licensed (for personal use) per user. So for someone like me who has multiple Macs, Parallels ends up being way more expensive, both initially and with each annual upgrade.
Both products come with free subscriptions to Windows antivirus software, with the option to pay for continued access once the subscription expires. But Parallels also offers Mac antivirus software with the same free-for-now, pay-later scheme. And if I want to use Parallels Access to control my Mac or virtual machines on my iPad, that will cost me another $80 per year after the free six-month trial period (though Parallels does sometimes offer discounts). I can do the same thing with Fusion using an inexpensive VNC client for my iPad—a one-time purchase—although admittedly the setup is less convenient. I can, of course, say no to any or all of this. But I dislike the feeling that Parallels is perpetually asking for more of my money.
At least I haven’t seen any ads in Parallels Desktop 9 (yet). Earlier versions displayed ads that couldn’t be disabled without a hidden Terminal command. And although the initial release of Parallels Desktop 9 installed the background software for Parallels Access even if you asked it not to, that behavior was remedied in an update. To the company’s credit, it does respond to customer feedback—but I find it troubling that this sort of thing keeps happening.
Parallels For Mac Activation Key
Final thoughts
Parallels Desktop is a fine product with some great features, including some that Fusion lacks. So, if you have it and like it, then more power to you. But I find Fusion more considerate to me as a user: it introduces less hassle into my work, stays out of my way when I’m not using it, and is far more cost-effective. It feels, in other words, like a more professional tool. That’s why I prefer it for virtualization.