![]() Fusion currently allows for configuration of shared folders, the use of a single hard drive image file, sound, CD-ROM access (read-only) and some basic network options. Parallels offers a much broader set of options for advanced configuration. Overall, both Parallels and Fusion rate well in the ease-of-use category - or will once some of the reliability issues are worked out during Fusion’s development. This makes working between the two operating systems much more seamless. One of those is clipboard support, allowing you to copy and paste between Mac and Windows applications. Parallels also offers a couple of features that make it more user-friendly than Fusion. This is one of the few places where Fusion truly delivers something that every user will appreciate that Parallels does not, though this feature is slated for the next version of Parallels’ software, Desktop 2. But, as with the shared folders feature, I found that it did not always function properly. This is actually a much easier method than setting up shared folders, and it can be used without having to configure anything. VMware delivers another option to accessing files between operating systems with its support for drag and drop of files and folders between virtual machines and Mac OS X. The shared folders technique used in both applications is solid, though it took me a couple of reinstalls of the VMware Tools to get this to function properly in Fusion. With their respective tool sets installed under Windows, users can easily move between the Windows and Mac OS X environments. Most users will find both Fusion and Parallels easy to use and will probably never even need to adjust the configuration settings from their defaults. Fusion also supports network boot from a Windows PXE server, which Parallels does not.Īlthough Parallels boots consistently, Fusion is prone to the occasional unexplained Windows boot failure (generally resolved by simply rebooting the virtual machine). For its part, Parallels manages these features through a virtual machine configuration dialog. One difference is that Fusion provides you with a virtual BIOS configuration tool that can be used to change boot options such as the order in which the virtual machine searches for a bootable drive. If money doesn't matter, go for Parallels Desktop.The boot process for virtual machines created with either Parallels or Fusion is essentially the same as the boot process for an actual PC. Not _that_ much difference and you can get used to everything. VMware Fusion has good support for macOS as VM, but the GUI itself is often clunky and sometimes outright ugly (progress bars, menu bar dialogs, small stuff like that).Īt the end of the day all run their VMs fine and fast and stable. VirtualBox is less comfortable to work with when you want to emulate macOS, but has superior support for any sort of Linux machine. In my experience VirtualBox and VMware Fusion on a Mac are about as good as the other. I've also tested VirtualBox (which has been my go-to product on Windows) in the time between the Parallels Desktop subscription ended and VMware Fusion 12 became free-as-in-beer. ![]() And - because I am a penny pincher with Scottish roots - I'll stick with it, though I miss Parallels Desktop. Better integrated, less resource intensive and just "slicker" to use.īut it costs money, and I am a cheapskate, so when my subscription ran out and VMware Fusion offered the most modern version for free, I opted to test it. To answer your question upfront: Parallels Desktop is waaaaay smoother on the Mac. I've switched from 10 years of using Parallels Desktop to VMware Fusion 12 about 2 months ago.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |