Fusion

 View Only
Expand all | Collapse all

Gone to Parallels 5

  • 1.  Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Dec 16, 2009 02:55 AM

    After updating to 3.1 I find Parallels 5 a much better program to work with in Windows 7 therefore I have suspended using Fusion for the time being.



  • 2.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Dec 16, 2009 04:37 AM

    You could at least share your Mac's configuration (run in Terminal: system_profiler SPHardwareDataTypeHardware) and what exactly 'better' is, either some sort of performance metric, mac integration/document sharing,... something more descriptive than 'better' or "everything."



  • 3.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Dec 16, 2009 04:58 AM

    Yes and sorry. I have installed Windows 7 on both platforms, I find VMware still slower in booting up and the view options much nicer in Parallels 5. I think I was so impressed with the earlier versions of Fusion and was expecting something actually faster with 3 and with greater visuals that once I tried P-5 I was much more impressed. I am only using MS Office 2007 and associates business type support programs, all pleasure and personal software is running on the Mac OS side.

    Cheers / Tom



  • 4.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Dec 17, 2009 03:58 AM

    On other item that I've just noticed, it seem I was having issues with my trackpad when Fusion 3.0 was running however I thought it was a hardware issue. With Parallels I am not experiencing this any longer. Hope this helps in some manner



  • 5.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Dec 17, 2009 01:46 PM

    I have also moved to parallels 5. I have a mid 2009 macbook pro 17, 2.8 ghz 4 gb memory, windows 7 ultimate bootcamp install. Aero is so sluggish under vmware that it is completely unuseable. If you turn aero off, things run fine, I am guessing bad video drivers. Parallels 5 is super fast with all graphical effects turned on.

    So for now I am going with Parallels, I may come back if vmware gets their stuff together.



  • 6.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Dec 24, 2009 08:14 PM

    I was discouraged by a strange jerking motion when moving Win 7 windows in Unity mode. I tried Parallels 5 briefly to see if it was better. It was better, but I found Parallels 5 to have other problems, things like menus that wouldn't open or menus that wouldn't close. If you click and hold a doc icon, you can't see what documents are open for that app. You have to click and hold the Parallels Desktop app – but that shows all documents.

    Parallels did seem ever-so-slightly faster but not substantially so. In the end I decided to delete Parallels and stick with Fusion. I opened a tech support case and they said the video problem was a known issue and they were working on it. Who knows when a fix will come out, but I know it will. Unlike some people in this forum who seem to be having major problems, the problem I have is relatively cosmetic. I'm inclined to think that for someone like me I'd be trading one set of product and vendor issues with another.

    Mike



  • 7.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Dec 29, 2009 02:48 AM

    Mike - I've not had any of these issues and find that the use of the trackpad finger system to enlarge the view is something I couldn't achieve with VMware 3, have you been able to do this?

    Regards / Tom



  • 8.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Dec 25, 2009 09:42 AM

    On my Mac Pro with 8 CPU cores, Fusion allows the VM to configure up to 4 Cores while Parallels 5 goes beyond. However, the performance between the both products don't seems to differ that much.

    Gaming is the only reason for my virtualization pursue and VMWare seems to have more success stories compared to Parallels. The next observation was Parallels Transporter is not as easy and reliable as VMWare Converter.



  • 9.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Dec 31, 2009 02:50 PM

    Hi,

    I also had no choice to move to Parallels 5 to use Windows 7:

    After so many frustrations with Fusion and Win7 (always when resuming after after a day of inactivity), I decided to give a try with Parallel 5 trial.

    After 2 weeks of use, here is my conclusion:

    -Performance are relatively the same. I cannot find any obvious differences. I am only using it to test web sites with different browsers and os. Aero is off.

    -Both have very interesting features. The best would be a mix of the 2!

    -The "pause" feature of Parallels is very very usefull! It doesn't give you back memory, but release any io or cpu resources.

    -Parallels is very stable. Even with Win 7. I resume it about 2 or 3 times per day without any problem.

    Because of the last point, I am now using Parallels for any Windows 7 test. I am still using Fusion for XP and Redhat.

    I really hope Fusion team will come out with a real update that will fix all the Windows 7 problems.

    Note: I already detailed my Win 7 problems in other messages and bug reports.



  • 10.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Jan 02, 2010 02:18 AM

    Thanks for the pause suggestion as I am finding it does work quite well in P-5. Also I have Aero on and am having no issues.

    Cheers / Tom



  • 11.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Jan 02, 2010 08:05 AM

    As my company is moving to Windows 7 we urgently need test all internal application for the

    new platform but fusion is keeping us behind schedule so recently we moved to Parallels 5

    and I must admit, for Windows 7, it is much much much better the Fusion 3.01.

    Fusion team always ask user to report found problems but all I can say is Fusion 3.01 DOES

    NOT WORK !

    Customer paid for a product and not to debug your product.



  • 12.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Jan 02, 2010 02:28 PM

    Fusion team always ask user to report found problems but all I can say is Fusion 3.01 DOES

    NOT WORK !

    You have one other posting here, not about Windows 7. At least name one issue you had with 3.0.1 to support your claim that it doesn't work. Fusion 3.0.1 works fine for all of my Windows 7 x86 and x64 machines.



  • 13.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Jan 02, 2010 04:49 PM

    You have one other posting here, not about Windows 7. At least name one issue you had with 3.0.1 to support your claim that it doesn't work.

    All one has to do is read the discussions posted in the Fusion Forum to see what issues it has and all version of Fusion have had issues and AFAIC Fusion has not been a usable program for me since version 2 was released and I too have gone back to using Parallels as my primary virtualization product on the Mac and frankly if I didn't have to support Fusion for my Clients that use it or didn't use Workstation and other VMware products I wouldn't waste my time with it at all! The problem is that for some reason Fusion 2 and 3 are problematic on some Mac's. I can take a clean built Virtual Machine that is running perfectly on a different system and copy it to my MBP and it runs like a dog in Fusion but if I import it into Parallels it runs just as it should like it does on the system it was originally created on! So while I have to accept the fact that there is something about my system that Fusion doesn't like I still consider this the fault of VMware and a shortcoming in the product since the competitors product does not suffer from the same issues. I only hope that when I get my new MBP, sometime this year, that it runs as well as on the other Mac's I've installed it on that have no problems like it does on my current MBP.



  • 14.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Jan 02, 2010 05:33 PM

    Thanks WoodyZ. I have seen speed variances with Fusion but my access to machines is limited to all MacBook Pros, from the original Core Duo (Yonah) to the first Core2 Duo (Merom), an SR Core2 Duo to my current 13" unibody MacBook Pro (Penryn). I ran Parallels in parallel (no pun) until they started kernel panicking my system every 2-3 days. I sent over a dozen dumps to Parallels and afaik, that was never resolved with last 3.x update I had access to. Since about 2008 I haven't looked back.

    I think it's not helpful at all to post "i'm gone" messages on a competitor's forums with zero detail other than "it doesn't work". What doesn't work? On which Mac (with model, ram, graphics specs), and with what guest OS (also with RAM, snapshot status, diskprint specs)? I'm not saying stick with what doesn't work. Just make a proper grievance and move on. VMware can sort out if they have the resources to confirm the issues.

    IMO, of what I've seen here there are some cases of video artifacts on ATI cards, cpu load (attributed to Apple), and slowdowns with some guests over 2 GB of RAM (usually over 4 GB) possibly on older MacPros. This is somewhat from memory, but I could search through and find more specific references.

    Finally, something in my mind makes me question what percentage of reports are on Hackintoshes. Some have been blatant about it (AMD procs), but others are more subtle. I've haven't seen hard unit numbers other than Psystar's former sales but I suspect some measureable percentage of issues come from frankenboxes. Just curious if you've run across them in your customer base.



  • 15.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Jan 03, 2010 08:34 AM

    Finally, something in my mind makes me question what percentage of reports are on Hackintoshes. Some have been blatant about it (AMD procs), but others are more subtle. I've haven't seen hard unit numbers other than Psystar's former sales but I suspect some measureable percentage of issues come from frankenboxes. Just curious if you've run across them in your customer base.

    That really reminds me for windows maker blaming from unlicensed/pirate windows for their OS issues.

    Wish Fusion 3 would not be another Vista.



  • 16.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Jan 03, 2010 03:31 PM

    That really reminds me for windows maker blaming from unlicensed/pirate windows for their OS issues.

    Interesting that you mentioned that since Microsoft knows how much pirated Windows is out there: 65% legit, 35% pirated, worldwide. Ballmer says Windows #1 competitor is pirated Windows, not OS X or Linux.

    While you have time to respond, it would nice to know what your aflliction with Fusion 3 is.



  • 17.  RE: Gone to Parallels 5

    Posted Jan 05, 2010 07:14 PM




    Finally, something in my mind makes me question what percentage of reports are on Hackintoshes. Some have been blatant about it (AMD procs), but others are more subtle. I've haven't seen hard unit numbers other than Psystar's former sales but I suspect some measureable percentage of issues come from frankenboxes. Just curious if you've run across them in your customer base.


    That really reminds me for windows maker blaming from unlicensed/pirate windows for their OS issues.
    Wish Fusion 3 would not be another Vista.

    No wait. rc2k

    has a valid point.

    Apple 'own' the official Mac hardware spec. They write their OS to fit exactly, neatly and beautifully onto that hardware. I'm as good as Jobsy at Mac Fanboi-ism, only I didn't say 'gorgeous' yet. Anyway, this is what makes OS X so stable and reliable on most Macs. I've had 70 day uptime on my MacBook Pro with just overnight sleeps. It works.

    This is good for VMware because they can rely upon the OS to work. It behaves correctly at a kernel and memory management level - which is vital for virtualisation to work. That's why ESX is so cool; it's all about the stable platform.

    And then you bring in hackintoshes. They work. But only sort of. It's not official hardware, just close enough. And some times people are sailing pretty close to the wind when they build them. As said, AMD processors are definitely not supported. So how can VMware (or Apple even) be responsible for software that does not work on these systems? They can't.

    Windows, on the other hand, is designed to work on ALL x86 hardware. That's the point. So pirated copies of Mac OS X and Windows are very different prospects from a stability and virtualisation perspective.

    ---

    VCP, VCI, MBCS CITP