Both programs support “virtual appliances”-dowloadable, pre-configured operating systems, often bundled with specific applications.
The third big difference: If you want to explore operating systems other than Windows, Fusion offers a much broader universe of alternatives. Parallels Desktop was faster than Fusion in some individual tests, Fusion was faster in others, and in the rest the differences were almost too close to call. Macworld Labs ran both programs through PCWorld’s WorldBench 6 benchmark suite, and the results were close: overall, VMware Fusion beat out Parallels Desktop by a very slight margin (113 to 118, meaning Fusion was 18 percent faster than a theoretical baseline system, Parallels Desktop 13 percent).
BEST WAY TO RUN WINDOWS ON MAC USING AN EXTERNAL WINDOWS 7
You can, of course, use them to run other operating systems-including OS X Lion itself-but that’s not the focus here.Īs noted, both Parallels Desktop and Fusion perform well when it comes to running Windows 7 on a Mac. Note that, for the most part, I’ve focused primarily on using these programs to run Windows on your Mac. So this time around, I’ll look at those and try to explain how the two programs differ on each. So instead of picking one program over the other based on how well it performs a given task, the choice now hinges on some more subjective factors. This time, however, that task-based approach didn’t work, largely because (with a couple exceptions that are noted below) the latest versions of Fusion and Parallels Desktop are nearly indistinguishable in performance. So, of those two, how do you decide which one is right for you? In the past, I tried to answer that question by comparing virtualization programs head-to-head, to see how they did on specific tasks.
0 kommentar(er)
