Our Verdict
WhenApple change over to Intel processors , Windows switchers as well as Mac users who needed to go the episodic Windows app joy .
That ’s because the chip electric switch was soon follow by the press release of virtualization software that would get those users run for Windows as if it were just another practical software on their Macs . While those first virtualization apps did n’t support all of Windows ’s features and were n’t terrifically fast , they were naut mi better than the Windows - emulation programs that had antecedently been available for the PowerPC silicon chip .
Since then , however , virtualization apps for the Mac have matured a lot . Four main options are now available : two commercial virtualization apps ( Parallels Desktop for MacandVMware Fusion ) , an open source alternative ( VirtualBox ) , and another solution that allow you install Windows apps without installing Windows ( Crossover ) . Those first two options are the most popular — and , for most users , the most sensible — alternatives .
I ’ve reviewed many generations of Parallels and Fusion , so I ’ve see them develop . The advance they ’ve made have been amazing . The two developer have pushed each other hard , and their products have leapfrog each other to innovate novel lineament and improve carrying into action , resulting in two excellent alternatives . Running the current generation of these two virtualization programs — Parallels 8 background for Mac ( ) and VMware Fusion 5 ( ) — on one of today ’s ultrafast Macs , only the most hard-core Windows users will feel the motive to boot into Boot Camp to go Windows natively .
Another result of this competition is that the two broadcast have evolved into near twin of each other . They proffer similar features , similar functioning , and at times , even look similar . There are a few remainder , though , and that ’s what I focused on in evaluate the latest versions of each .
Opening and closing
The two virtualization apps do differ in speed — not the speed of the virtual OSes themselves or the apps in them , but the stop number with which they open , sleep , resume , and keep out down those OSes . In some very simple testing , I line up that Parallels is notably faster at each of those undertaking , but particularly at suspending and resuming . If you postulate to unfold and close practical machine all twenty-four hour period , these time savings could add up .
Both virtualization apps are comparatively stable . I did n’t have any unlimited crashes in either , but I did go through some minor oddness in both . In Fusion , for example , entering and exit full - screen mode causes more waver and redraws than it does in Parallels . When using Parallels , however , I had some apps fail in Windows ( which did n’t pass in Fusion ) , and there were times where I simply could n’t typewrite my password at the Linux login prompt .
Virtualizing Windows
While both Fusion and Parallels support literally hundreds of guest operating systems , most user will be employing them to bunk one or more flavors of Windows . Overall , both do an excellent job .
In earliest reviews , I get hold that bothParallelsandFusiondo well running earlier rendering of Windows , so this time I focused on the upcoming Windows 8 . For testing purposes , I used the final Windows 8 Developer Preview ( which should be indistinguishable to the consumer interpretation due out before long ) . Both handle it well , for the most part . ( mark : What used to be called the Metro user interface in Win 8 is now normally just Start or , occasionally , the Windows 8 UI . )
For the traditional Windows interface ( the Desktop clitoris in Start ) , both apps go Windows as well as their predecessors . Office applications run without wait , and I never felt as if anything was remand in either platform . The Windows interface itself was loyal and fluid , Web browsing was trouble - free , and the two electronic mail apps I try work fine .
Start apps — the shiny new full - sieve apps for Windows 8 — also ran fine , as long as I was using them while I had windowpane running in each virtualization program ’s “ windowed ” modality ( meaning that Windows itself , rather than each Windowsappindividually , got its own group O X windowpane ) .
attempt to use Start apps while in Coherence ( Parallels ) or Unity ( Fusion ) modality ( which give each Windows app its own OS X windowpane ) had its challenges . It can be done in Fusion , but only if you go one Start lotion at a meter . If you set up another , it replaces the currently running app .
Parallels tries to work around this by putting each Start full - screen app in its own OS X desktop . In theory , this should allow a user to run multiple Start apps at the same clock time . In my testing , however , I find it did n’t quite work . Sometimes I was ineffective to select those desktops ; other times , I could pick out the desktop but not the app itself . ( It must be said that Parallels ’ Windows 8 support is still under development , so some glitches are n’t unexpected . )
In scant , if you want to run Start apps , then — with either programme — keep Windows in windowed mode , and you wo n’t have any job .
If you like to fiddle any game that are n’t useable for the Mac , Fusion and Parallels ’ ability to quicken 3D computer graphic in Windows is a wonderful thing . With these latest releases , Parallels has taken a clean-cut jumper cable on the gaming front . I test quite a few games and generally saw better computer graphic and libertine framing rates in Parallels than I did in Fusion .
For example , I set up the demo ofARMA 2 , which admit an intimate benchmarking tool . Using that tool , with the same detail and resolving circumstance in both Parallels and Fusion , Parallels generated 40 physique per irregular ; Fusion could make out only 11 . I got exchangeable termination when I tested each virtualization program ’s OpenGL speed using Cinebench .
I also tried the demonstration ofJust Cause 2 , which runs in Steam . Although it installed in both virtualization apps , I could run it only in Parallels , as the biz requiresDirectX10 . ( nuclear fusion reaction corroborate only DirectX 9.0c . ) Not only did it execute , it ran quite well . While Parallels ’ support for DirectX 10 is marked as experimental , it worked fine in my testing .
Both Fusion and Parallels have added support for Retina display when feed window : you’re able to run at pel - double up or full Retina resolutions . Both programs also now plunk for USB 3 ; Parallels includes Bluetooth sharing .
Parallels lets you drag and shake off email attachments at once to Outlook in Windows , and has a presentation wizard to aid those using Windows to give presentations on projectors . you could now also scuff and drop single file and pamphlet between Windows and OS X.
Virtualizing OS X and Linux
require to test out some confutative piece of software system ? apply a virtual machine . Want to experiment with change arrangement configurations ? Use a virtual motorcar . run a virtual copy of OS X can be handy for any number of reasons . But if you’re able to accept some limitations , both virtualization apps run OS X very nicely .
Both of them make it childlike to virtualize Mountain Lion , using either the installer lodge itself ( Fusion and Parallels ) or the Mountain Lion recuperation partitioning ( Parallels only ) . Unfortunately , both endure from the same shortcomings : You ’ll see that an OS X virtual machine has much less power than the Windows equivalent . You ca n’t quicken 3D nontextual matter . You ca n’t drag and knock off file between the virtual o and the substantial OS . You ca n’t run a multi - display full - projection screen virtual OS X.
line of latitude does one thing when break away OS X that Fusion does not : you may copy graphic to and from the virtual OS ecstasy installing ( optical fusion will care only text on the clipboard ) .
If you have an impulse to get your toes loaded with Linux , both Parallels and Fusion make it loose to do so . Parallels create it a touch easy , though , as you’re able to install Ubuntu ( not to mention Chrome , Windows 8 preview , and Android ) directly from Parallels itself ; Fusion postulate you to get hold and download the phonograph recording image .
nuclear fusion now patronage OpenGL acceleration in Linux , match what you could do in Parallels . I attempt some simple OpenGL games in Ubuntu 12.0.4 , and they ran passably well in both . ( I was unable to find an Linux - favorable OpenGL bench mark that would run in both virtualization apps . )
Integration with Mountain Lion
Both programs allow you run Windows apps in full - screenland style , but they do so in different ways . That ’s because there are actually two mode apps can run “ full - cover . ” In the first , the syllabus ’s windowpane simply expands to fill up all of the seeable screen blank space .
In the arcsecond , the app not only assume over the entire covert , but it also forms its own virtual background in Mission Control . ( Apple ’s own apps go full - screen door in this 2nd sense . ) If you see in Mission Control when you ’re draw Fusion , you ’ll see that each Windows app appear on its own , just like any OS go app . With Parallels , all of those separate app windowpane are lump together with the Parallels icon . ( If you open up the Command - Tab task - whipper , though , you ’ll see separate accounting entry for each Windows app in both Fusion and Parallels . )
Fusion and Parallels practice a mix of these two full - screen door modes , depend on which OS you ’re virtualizing and the issue of monitor you have connect to your Mac .
If you run an OS tenner virtual machine on a single screen in Parallels , it will occupy that one screen but wo n’t get a desktop of its own in Mission Control . But if you tend Linux in the same way , it will . Run a Windows virtual machine under those same conditions , and you could select ( via a toggle in the virtual machine ’s options screen ) which mode it will utilise . optical fusion makes the undivided - presentation scenario simple : You get OS X ’s on-key full - projection screen mode , complete with its own Mission Control background , for OS X , Linux , and Windows .
When you hook up more than one display , both programs let you toggle between using all of those displays in full - screen way or just one . If you lay out Fusion to use all displays , and then execute Linux or Windows , the practical OSs will take over all the screens and make their own desktops in Mission Control ; OS X expend up just one . Parallels handle Linux and OS X the same way ; if you ’re run Windows , you’re able to choose to run it in unfeigned oculus sinister go full - screen mode ( a Mission Control desktop is created ) , or just have it make full all of the display .
In Linux particularly , Parallels handled the multiple screens poorly : It used only two of my three in full - screen mode , and those two appear as one ultrawide display . Fusion used all three , and each was treated as a separate blind .
Despite these disparities , both programme in reality handle full - screen mode better than Apple ’s own apps when you have more than one display . Those apps occupy one sieve and depart the rest blank . Fusion even offers a cool mini - toolbar ( when running Windows ) that lets you drag the full - screen windowpane to any of your other display .
Both apps also now work with Notification Center . unification will use it to send Fusion - relate content , such as a notification of an available update . Parallels goes further : It will notify you not only about update , but also when you do things such as sending special keystrokes to a Windows virtual car .
In theory , Parallels will also pass along message generated by Windows 8 ’s newtoast notificationstechnology . However , in testing with Messages , a purportedly goner - enabled Start app that ships with Windows 8 ( not the IM customer that ships with OS X Mountain Lion ) , I was ineffectual to get these to work . Given that Windows 8 is n’t shipping yet , and that Parallels has stated that full Windows 8 support is n’t yet complete , that loser is n’t surprising .
Neither Parallels nor Fusion extend in - app setting to control which apprisal you see ; you ’ll have to expend OS X ’s Notifications System Preferences board to fine - melodic phrase their behavior .
If you wish , both program will also mix Windows apps into OS X ’s Launchpad . In Parallels , you may add any single Windows program to the Launchpad by Control - get across its Dock icon and choosing Add to Launchpad , as you would with any OS decade app . Fusion has an option to show Windows programme in Launchpad , but it did n’t reliably find all my Windows apps .
Parallels 8 has some other Mountain Lion - specific features , but one in peculiar take in my optic : It adds a fresh Open in IE button to Safari ’s toolbar .
This button comes good manners of a Safari extension that ’s establish when you install Windows , though you ’re not asked about it during that process . If you do a lot of work with cross - platform examination or evolution of internet site , the release is a great timesaver : One clink , and you ’re look at the current Safari page in IE for Windows . ( It ’s easy enough to disable if you do n’t want to apply it , but I would choose to be asked before programs modify other course of study during installment . )
Parallels also supports some Mountain Lion gestures , include tweak - to - zoom , filch between full - screen apps , and two - finger scrolling . ( Swiping work only when you ’re in Parallels ’ Coherence mood ( again , when each Windows app is treated just like any other stand - alone Mac app . ) In my testing , these gestures generally function well , though not consistently in all apps . You ca n’t , for illustration , tweet out and scroll between yellow journalism in IE , as you’re able to in Safari .
Unrelated to Mountain Lion , Fusion include a revamped practical machine depository library that lets you organize your virtual operating system into folder , and you’re able to choose between picture and list view ; you also get an at - a - glance view of each virtual machine ’s disk place and snapshot . They ’ve also addressed one of my pet peeves : Snapshots ( which enter the current state of your practical system , making it prosperous to repair or recreate ) now get their own windowpane , which have in mind I do n’t need to stop run just to browse my snapshots . There ’s a new one - click snapshot feature , too , which makes taking a shot as easy as possible . Finally , an embedded help essence hold in a serial of how - to videos that comprehend many basic Fusion tasks .
Bottom line
Given the similarities in feature and performance between these two political program , decide on one or the other is n’t promiscuous . If your needs let in stake in virtual Windows installations , Parallels is the preferred pick . Similarly , Fusion is the one to get if you do it experimenting with bunch of different practical OSs , thanks to VMware ’s huge program library of ready - to - course O “ appliances . ”
Beyond that , it comes down to some footling thing . unification , for instance , supervise app windows better than Parallels , while Parallels offers better gaming and 3D performance .
Then there is the yield of cost . At this time , spinal fusion 5 is sell for $ 50 ( no upgrade pricing ) , and Parallels for $ 80 ( or $ 50 if you ’re upgrading from an earlier variation or “ crossgrading ” from Fusion ) . More importantly , Parallels uses a per - political machine license . A two - license version is $ 100 , but you ’ll need licenses to cover each Mac you practice . Fusion , on the other bridge player , provide one permission to cover as many Macs as you personally use . So if you ’re in a multi - Mac household , Fusion could save you a bunch of money .
Still , both are excellent computer programme , and you ca n’t go wrongly either way of life . Thankfully , both have free trials available , so you could download and try them out to see which works best for you .
update 10/01/12 to clarify the choice for installing an OS decade practical simple machine .
