Parallels or Fusion - HerrFunken

I'm using Fusion which IMO, is really quite excellent. I don't really understand where keson1 is coming from. This guy (or gal?) is obviously a Windows user that for some strange reason has switched to Apple and can't work out why their Mac doesn't work like a PC!?! If one wants a Windose PC box, get a PC!, but Fusion works more like a Macintosh application (ie apple-tab switches between Mac apps- not windows apps- just like a Mac should behave!). I bought Fusion because I found Parallels rather buggy, and I had to keep repairing my XP bootcamp partition. Fusion otoh works extremely well with the XP partition.

Reply to This

Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 11:29 AM PDT

Parallels or Fusion - Kirianya

They are both very fine products. Try both before making your decision, then go with the one that suits your needs.

I went with Parallels because I had purchased a license last year. It works fine for me. I can RDC to my home machine, and it works great. My experience with Fusion was similar. I suspect that the products are extremely close.

Parallels felt marginally faster but not substantially faster. I suspect that under laboratory conditions, neither program would be a clear performance winner. That's why its important for you to make your own decision.

Reply to This

Sunday, September 16 2007 @ 05:16 PM PDT

Parallels or Fusion - Olu070

I have licenses for both. I've chosen Parallels over Fusion repeatedly for these reasons.
1. Parallels GUI was more consistent (ie windows taskbar hides/appears consistently, I can hide individual windows programs, minimize to dock works better)

2. Parallels is noticeably faster on my machine(MBP 2.33ghz, 3gb ram) with Windows XP Pro. Apparently Fusion smokes Parallels with Vista.

3. Fusion will kill my Airport without fail if I leave Fusion running.

All these issues seem to be addressed to some extent for this release, so I will give it another try.

Reply to This

Wednesday, September 26 2007 @ 05:10 AM PDT