Average Reviews:
(More customer reviews)I have been a Windows user for 25 years and I have made the leap and replaced my Dell laptop with a MacBook. I am an application developer on the PC and Unix platform, and thus I run a lot of industry strength development packages and tools. I use Virtual PC to host different server environments on my Vista desktop, and on my laptop I run all kinds of server applications, from a Sybase database to a WebLogic web server. So when it came time for me to move to a Mac as my mobile platform, I needed a virtual environment for environment. With the adance of hardware assisted virtualization, now is the time.
I tried three virtualization packages - the Sun VirtualBox, VMWare Fusion, and Parallels. After hours experimentation and testing, I have decided on Parallels. Here are my findings.
VirtualBox is just not for prime time, lots of graphics corruption right out of the box. For instance, when you switch from full screen Windows to the OS X desktop, some of the Windows desktop would be left on the screen, obscuring the OS X screen. The interaction between the Windows desktop and the OS X desktops is not as seamless as that provided by Fusion and Parallels, and numerous other little things that detract from the overall user experience. So even though VirtualBox is free, it's not worth what I need to put up with.
VMWare Fusion and Parallels are actually very similar in how they work, and I don't see any difference in terms of performance. But after extensive usability testing I have found that Parallels gets more of the little things right. And it's the little things, the attention to details, that differentiates the excellent from the merely good.
For example, when you maximize a Windows application in Windows full screen mode under Fusion, the application would maximize to cover the Taskbar. Under Parallels, however, the application correctly maximizes to cover only the client area of the desktop not cover by the Taskbar. I know VMWare must know how a correct Windows application should behave, and I attribute this behavioral error to either that they were lazy or that they hoped people don't notice. Neither speaks well for the code that runs underneath the surface.
Another example, when you task switch using command-tab in OS X, you can tell which applications are Windows native applications because Parallels would superimpose the two vertical bars Parallels logo over the Windows application icons. Parallels gets credit for extra effort. Fusion on the other hand not only does not show you which applications are Windows apps, but cmd-tab is simply not implemented correctly in virtual Windows and thus task switch is almost impossible when you're not in unity mode (Windows and OS X apps side by side). Very bad.
Yet another example, you can access the entire collection of Mac applications right from the Windows desktop because Parallels sees fit to create shortcuts to all the Mac application right on the Windows Start menu and you can of course duplicate those short cuts anywhere in the Windows environment.
Example number four, you can control the boot sequence of the virtual machine using the Parallels application menu, while with Fusion you need to get in to the virtual machine's BIOS to do that - and the BIOS screen flashes by so fast you need to manually edit the configuration file to slow down the welcome screen so you can actually see which keys to hit to enter Setup or choose the boot device. This is another example of lazy application development.
And not to belabor the point, example number five, VMWare only emulates multiple processors, NOT MULTIPLE CORES, so that Core 2 Dual you got there is useless if you run XP Home which only supports a single processor.
Now I don't know about you, but speaking as a developer, I think thoroughness and thoughtfulness on the part of the user interface is a good indication of the amount of effort that has gone under the surface to make the application work right.
As far as Parallels' performance is concerned, this is what I found. Now I can't speak for gamers, as I don't play games on my laptop. But Parallels is able to run industrial strength servers and development environments on my 2.0GHz, 2GB dual core MacBook faster than my 1.7GHz, 2GB single core Dell. So it definitely does what I want it to. And if you only run Office or Quicken, then you have nothing to worry about.
If you have made a transition to OS X and need a virtual environment to run your Windows apps, I encourage you to go download the trial versions of both Fusion and Parallels and do the testing yourself, using the applications that you want to use. Give it some time and don't get too excited by the initial wow factor of seeing your Windows application and your OS X application coexist side by side. Be thorough and dig deep, and you will find the choice you really want to live with day to day. And mine happens to be Parallels.
Click Here to see more reviews about: Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac
Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac makes it easy to run Windows, Linux, and more side-by-side with Mac OS X without rebooting. With Parallels award winning virtualization technology, you can run Mac OS X and critical Windows applications such as Outlook, Access, QuickBooks, Internet Explorer and more, all at the same time. This new release of Parallels Desktop for Mac comes packed with 50+ new features and enhancements including the ability to drag-and-drop files between desktops, run Windows programs like native Mac applications and migrate your existing PC to your Mac. And with the Installation Wizard to help you get started, youll be up and running in just three clicks of the mouse!
Get 15% OFF
Click here for more information about Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac
No comments:
Post a Comment