But I’ve had my share of specific-but-annoying issues with Parallels and I’m looking forward to seeing if their competition can do better. I can’t say for sure that it does, and the fact is that Parallels is not a bad product and so it’s hard to say that clearly one product is better than the other. So, at least from my point of view, I see great potential for Fusion offering more value than Parallels. If VMWare has any customer support at all (and all indications are that they do), then that’s another area in which Fusion would be a better choice. I’ve not one single time received an actual resolution for any of the support requests I’ve made to Parallels support staff. The only replies I’ve ever received from numerous support request messages to Parallels are in answer to an issue I resolved on my own in the first week or so after I sent my message, and both replies were sent more than two months after the message for which they were responding was sent. It should use basically NO CPU time in that situation, whatever other issues might exist.įusion’s promo materials specifically say it has the lowest resource consumption of the market (which as near as I can tell really is only Parallels and Fusion, when it comes to really usable virtualization), and I’m looking forward to testing it myself and seeing if I can get away from Parallels CPU-hogging habits.įinally, one thing that VMWare could not possibly do worse on is customer support. Even when Parallels is running but not hosting anything, it uses 6% of the CPU.
Menumeters download pro#
My MacBook Pro already has a marginal battery lifetime, at 3 hours, and when Parallels is hosting Windows, that drops to 1.5-2 hours, with Parallels consuming a consistent 12% of the CPU time (seen via Activity Monitor), and of course more than that if anything’s actually going on in the guest OS (Windows XP SP2 in my case). The thing I am most interested in at this point is whether Fusion can do a better job not sucking down CPU time when it’s doing nothing.
Menumeters download full#
But it’s important to note that without competition on the market, it’s entirely possible that Parallels wouldn’t have those features now.Īnd of course, both Parallels and Fusion do not have full 3D acceleration support (they are both described as “experimental”), and I have every expectation that both will eventually fully support at least DX9. Many of these things have since been addressed by Parallels. They also were the first to have any sort of 3D acceleration support.
Menumeters download mac#
One reviewer wrote that Fusion does a better job of integrating guest applications with native Mac applications, and that overall Fusion’s UI is nicer.
Re: “what value does it add that Parallel is not”ĭisclaimer: I’ve only used Parallels, so this is all based on other comments I’ve read about Fusion.
0 kommentar(er)
