Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Jul 2006 20:46 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Ars reviews Parallels Desktop for MacOS X, and concludes: "People pondering the switch to a MacBook can rest assured that with the exception of USB device support and hardware accelerated 3-D applications, their needs will be well met by this little workhorse of a program. Between the networking that just works, the impressive speed and the inability of the client operating systems to know they are running within a 'virtual machine', I think you'll be hard-pressed to find software for any x86 OS that doesn't work within a Parallels VM."
Thread beginning with comment 141835
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
vs VMWare
by Drumhellar on Tue 11th Jul 2006 06:47 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

VMware has *experimental* support for 3D acceleration and SMP for the guest OS, as well as support for 64-bit guests (not for me though. My athlon isn't new enough).

Also, it's vm tools run on Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD. Plus X.Org has a vmware driver, so Solaris, NetBSD, etc etc have decent video support.

USB has worked great for me, and though I haven't tried, I suspect VMware can't use my burner, though I'd imagine a USB one would work.

You can also use your serial and parallel ports, and you can attatch any scsi device you have directly to the guest. Raw disks also work.

VMware (Windows host) has also never crashed on me, even when abusing multiple guest OS's.

DOS games run like crap, as only basic VESA support is included. Your much better off playing your dos game straight in XP. DosBox is even cooler.

For networking, VMware can share the connection, use a NAT setup, or be networked only with the host (and other VM's if you put them on the same virtual network). With Windows guests, you can just drag files from the host into the VMware window and drop files on desktop, and vice versa. Also, when you resize the your vmware window, a Windows guest will change resolutions to accomodate.

The best part is it's snapshots. You can take snapshots at any point, and even branch off from previous snapshots and do something else. I've found that infinately useful.

Based on the article, VMware is leaps and bounds ahead. Of course, it also costs much more.

Reply Score: 1

RE: vs VMWare
by Vargol on Tue 11th Jul 2006 08:26 in reply to "vs VMWare"
Vargol Member since:
2006-02-28

And it's currently vapourware on the Mac which gives Parallels Desktop a bit of an advantage.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: vs VMWare
by Drumhellar on Tue 11th Jul 2006 12:36 in reply to "RE: vs VMWare"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

The comparison is still valid, though.

Several of the features that VMware has that Parallels lacks are currently experimental, and it's not entirely reasonable to expect Parallels to have those features in a first release.

One thing I would expect is the ability to virtualize OSX when running on a Mac, but I see no indication that it's possible to do so. That should be the focus of the next release, even if you can only do so on the OSX version.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: vs VMWare
by chrish on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:43 in reply to "RE: vs VMWare"
chrish Member since:
2005-07-14

True, but the first one to offer accelarated (and stable) 3D on OS X is going to get my money; that'll let me dump my XP box, which will be cause for celebration.

- chrish

Reply Parent Score: 1