Parallels vs VMWare: Which solution runs Windows faster?
Just gotta run Windows on your Mac? Then you need to know which of the two most popular (and powerful) virtualization solutions has got the juice to get the job done while keeping your Mac creamy smooth and your virtue untarnished.
Thereupon, you could try out VMWare 2 and Parallels 4 on your own—both products are available in trial versions (VMWare demo, Parallels demo). Still, you want to let someone you trust do the work for you, benchmarking and documenting the whole process.
Well, according to the stop watch clicking, screen cap snapping lads at MacTech, the best overall virtualization solution in terms of performance is Parallels by a margin of 14 to 20 percent, depending on the particulars.
Yes, there are situations where VMWare does come out ahead, but all-in-all Parallels is the faster way to run XP and / or Vista on your Macintosh, according to the benchmarks recorded by MacTech. Still, there’s more to the picture than the raw numbers can tell us:
“Both VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop for Mac are excellent products, and both allow you to run Windows XP and Vista quite well. In the end, your decision as to which product you should take into account what’s most important to you: speed, footprint, graphics capabilities, features, user interface, OS you want to run, and more all come into play”—MacTech
For exaxmple, whereas Parallels couldn’t playback HD video at all, VMWare managed only sputtering performances on the MacBook, MacBook Pro, and iMac, but was able to play it fine on the Mac Pro. Likewise, while Parallels Desktop won the FPS test across the board in Civilization IV: Colonization, VMWare had difficulties displaying that game’s opening video.
How each solution performs will depend on what software and games you intend on using.
That said, if you are in the market for both a new Mac and a virtualization solution, let MacMall and ClubMac make up your mind for you—both offer a free after rebate copy of Parallels with any new Mac purchase.
Looking for more reasons to choose Parallels over VMWare? VMWare requires you to register, provide your email, agree to their EULA and opt of marketing spam all before you get the chance to download or evaluate anything—bad form guys.
Using VMWare or Parallels? Share your impressions on where they soar and leave you flat below…
Related Posts:
March 16th, 2009
What about Sun’s FREE VirtualBox? Please run a spped comparison if it as well. It seems faster than either VMware or Parallels, as substantiated by my running Windows7 in a VM using VirtualBox on a Dell mini 9. It may not be as feature complete, but I am testing it as a replacement for VMware in a corporate environment where it is giving me headaches…
March 16th, 2009
What about virtual box a free opensource solution??
March 16th, 2009
Macworld reviewed VirtualBox 2.1.4
http://www.macworld.com/article/139261/2009/03/vbox21.html?lsrc=rss_reviews
March 17th, 2009
I installed both versions on my MacBook Pro, and I must say, that VM Ware Fusion works best for my needs. With Parallels I felt the Mac to be alot slower, than now that I use Fusion.
Together with Spaces, it works for me.
I do not like to run Windows at all, but I have to at work.
March 27th, 2009
Jan, it’s strange to hear that, because I have absolutely opposite experience.
I used to work with both Fusion and Parallels and the first seemed to be slower for my needs – Word, Outlook and some windows-only apps.
June 2nd, 2009
VM Ware Fusion works fine, but when it comes to gaming, Parallels is the clear winner. I couldn’t play Warcraft 3 on VM Ware because all the controls, resolution and screen were messed up. With parallels? No problem. Other software’s like Office, Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, etc seemed to work fine on both. Plus, I really love the ‘Coherence’ functionality by Parallels.