vmware fusion 8 pro vs parallels desktop 12

Parallels is (claimed) 300% faster than version 4, which was a HUGE improvement already over version 3 (which is what we were upgrading most clients from). and briefly tried Virtual Box.ĭropped virtual box immediately because it is not yet developed enough or nearly as stable as the other two.Įither Parallels or Fusion will work moving forward but the following items tipped the scale toward Parallels for us (for now): We did pretty extensive testing on Parallels 5 and Fusion 3. Parallels management tools (purchased separately) supports centrally managing VM Hosts across their platform and product lines, except for Desktop. Eventually they will officially support it. Parallels BareMetal Server (while not officially supported due to licensing issues with Apple) does run on the Xserve with a special boot loader image they can provide. pvm files and runs as a service so the user does not need to be logged in for VMs to continue running. Parallels also has Parallels Server for Mac which runs on OS X Server (normally on an Xserve or Mac Pro with OS X Server installed) which is compatible with the Parallels Desktop for Mac. What I’ve garnered from the forums is that VMware pushed out Fusion just so they could say they had the first Desktop Virtualization software for the Mac. At least they haven’t said anything publicly about it. Fusion is VMware’s only Mac product and it doesn’t look like they’re going to extend out to anything beyond desktop level virtualization than that. I ended up choosing Parallels because Parallels has a more committed “Mac Camp” than VMware at the same pricing with the same performance (except for PDfM 5). Parallels 5 however shows better performance than Fusion at this point. Feature-wise Fusion and Parallels are pretty much on par with each other. VirtualBox “will work” but doesn’t have the performance of either Fusion or Parallels. I’ve used all three Fusion, Parallels and VirtualBox.

Vmware fusion 8 pro vs parallels desktop 12