Comments on: VMware vs Parallels: Parallels 6 blows away competition

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 23:25:57 +0000

VMWare ismuch faster on my MacbookPro 2.8 i7 and also supports the ability to take my VM from a client company (windows only enterprise) and run on my Mac. With parallels I would need to have a machine to be able to convert it.

By: ztrget

ztrget — Thu, 19 May 2011 23:44:43 +0000

Wmware is much faster on my 2011 MBP pro 2.2 i7. Try both before you buy!

By: Jordan

Jordan — Sun, 01 May 2011 17:32:39 +0000

Thanks for this, I think I’ve finally made my decision – Parallels! I will probably end up trying VMWare just for fun though…

By: lynskyrd

lynskyrd — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:17:53 +0000

@Dave Field
Exactly- most people don’t know what ESXi is. Parallels may have a performance “advantage” but at the cost of stability. I’ve used Parallels, VirtualBox and Fusion- Fusion is more stable as well as being more compatible. Too many ‘little things’ creep up with Parallels that compromise reliability. For me- Fusion… just works.

By: Bink of Boldhome

Bink of Boldhome — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:18:19 +0000

It is silly to think that Parallels is a superior alternative to VMware Fusion no matter where the product (Parallels) supposedly excels. The so-called benchmark considers (or at least reports) only the number of tests where Parallels “outperforms” VMware Fusion, not by how *much* it does so. Call me suspicious.

By: Dave Field

Dave Field — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 22:40:47 +0000

There is one area where the VMware does infact trump Parallels, and that in portability to the enterprise. Creating a VMware machine on your Mac, and then porting up to your ESX(i) server is a snap. From Laptop to Server in minutes..