This combined with OSX's Spaces feature is fantastic.Īs for Parallels to be honest I've never found it very impressive. It should also be noted that Fusion works very well indeed with dual-monitors and Windows recognises the fact I have two monitors just as it would on real hardware. I run various older games under it without issue, I even run an old version of MS Virtual PC under my WinXP VM for some ultra-ancient DOS stuff which runs remarkably well considering its a VM within a VM lol.
Fusion has been very stable for me, no hickups at all. But XP performance is generally excellent. With only 4gb I find it a struggle to run Windows Vista or 7 and be able to do anything worthwhile with it and still run all my mac apps. Im on a Mac Pro (early 2008) with 4gb ram and I run Windows XP Pro under vmware almost constantly. Ive used both vmware fusion and parallels and personally I find fusion a superior product in almost every way, especially where it matters which is in general performance and stability. But the product's performance and ease of use once you get things sorted out, are excellent.Ī very similar free option that you might want to try first:Ĭo-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions) I own Parallels, and I can tell you that their support is abysmal.
How to choose which virtualization program to go with: Macworld magazine published an online article comparing options: Choosing a virtualization application | Software | Editors' Notes | MacworldĪ Review of Software to Run Windows on a Mac - WSJ.com Head-to-Head: Parallels Desktop for Mac vs.
I haven't see any comparison tests using Windows 7 yet, but here is a comparison test with Vista:
0 kommentar(er)
