Feature Articles

Revisiting Virtualization on the Mac - Fusion vs. Parallels

By Vincent Chang - 29 Mar 2009

Concluding Thoughts

Concluding Thoughts

The last time we fiddled around with virtualization on the Mac, we came away with our hopes slightly dampened by the lackluster performance. Virtualization has a very compelling argument, with the way our hardware is utilized that is leaps and bounds more capable than the typical everyday application. It was slightly disappointing to realize that it just wasn't quite there yet with Fusion and Parallels then.

Partially, it was our fault for not using a more powerful system. But the virtualization software too had their own flaws, from the rough edges on Fusion's Unity mode to Parallels lack of support for multiple processors.

These flaws have been quite comprehensively addressed in the latest versions of these software. Parallels 4.0 especially has undergone some serious changes under the hood. Although the interface and usability of Parallels has not seen any significant improvements, the product has arguably a lead here that they can afford to overlook that aspect in favor of more urgent core hypervisor changes.

Fusion 2.0 meanwhile has gone the other way, catching up with its competitor's features by aping quite a few of them in the new Unity 2.0. Technical specifications and hardware support have been improved of course but not to the extent that we have seen on Parallels 4.0. One could see that Fusion has been surpassed here by Parallels just from looking at the specs sheet.

When placed besides each other, both virtualization software have almost identical user interfaces. From the Suspend and Shutdown controls to the Unity/Coherence and Full Screen modes, these two seem to be following the same script. Click to enlarge.


The results however are similar. Both software have reached a stage where the features, from their respective snapshot managers to the virtual machine libraries to the interface, and integration between the guest/host OS are almost identical. The major features are present on both products. Parallels has tossed in a few interesting twists like iPhone support and Modality in version 4.0 but we aren't too convinced of its usefulness.

From the perspective of an end-user, Fusion 2.0 has made great improvements, especially since these are changes that are easily noticed. Whereas Parallels' hardware support and better stability is not immediately obvious. And hence our feeling is that it's a virtual tie (pardon the pun).

Both products performed similarly when running everyday applications, HD video playback and even gaming. There are individual quirks and flaws to each. Hence the case could be made for either, depending on how you use your Mac but it will likely boil down to Unity versus Coherence from a user's point of view. Power users may be concerned with the hardware support but the basics have been covered more than adequately by both firms. Casual users would probably judge these two software on their OS X integration.

Personally, we felt that Parallels' integration remains a notch better though Fusion appeared to be rock stable in comparison during our testing, perhaps a result of its long standing experience in this field. VMware also has a very enticing offer for its existing users, with Fusion 2.0 a free upgrade for Fusion 1.x users. In line with its attempt to lure more switchers, the Import function on Fusion 2.0 is another right step.

In contrast, Parallels will charge an upgrade fee for current users and the full sticker price of US$80 for new users. Coming after the rather flaky Parallels 3.0, it will definitely strain the loyalty of its user base to pay to upgrade. There's no doubt which strategy will be more appealing to consumers but as with most software products, we highly recommend trying both out first as they are available for trial with full functionality. For non-gaming purposes or even light casual gaming, it would be fair to say that both virtualization software are good enough that you won't have to resort to running Boot Camp anymore.

Writer's Footnote:- For those who are interested in virtualization on the Mac but are reluctant to pony up the cash, there's the open source VirtualBox, a free alternative led by Sun Microsystems. At the time of writing this article, it's not quite as polished as Fusion or Parallels, but if it meets your needs, it's an alternative to consider. We'll be keeping a tab on its progress as well as other successful open source initiatives and perhaps rally up another comparison amongst them in future.

Join HWZ's Telegram channel here and catch all the latest tech news!
Our articles may contain affiliate links. If you buy through these links, we may earn a small commission.