Does this story help? http://i.gizmodo.com/5167056/vmware-...hich-is-faster
I just picked up an Intel Mac Mini. As far as I can tell, it is a dead heat between Fusion or Parallels. Any reason to go with/avoid one over the other?
i prefer virtualBox from Sun. mostly because it is completely free. it works just as good as the other 2 big ones.
i do like fusion as well. i use it at work (they paid for that is why i like it). but by using fusion all day everyday, and then using virtualbox in my car, i cannot really tell enough (actually i cannot tell at all) to make me want to pay for a copy of fusion. Anyway, all i am trying to say is that they all pretty much work the same, but why pay $70 when you can get pretty much the same thing for free?
I've run both, and Fusion wins hands down. It handles USB devices much cleaner than Parallels does, especially coming out of sleep and deep sleep. There were a few other things that I didn't like about Parallels, but it's been over a year since I ran it.
I will download the trial version of Fusion. Virtualbox looks like a pretty good package but I found a Macworld article that said it works PRETTY good but isn't yet feature compatible with Fusion or Parallels.
I want to run my Garmin Mobile PC on the Mini but will also want to retain the capability to run Road Runner on it so I can keep an eye on the Windows side of the world. If something doesn't work, hopefully it won't be from the virtual machine.
yeah i can see why somebody would say that virtualbox isn't quite up to par with the other two, but i really can't tell the difference. i have heard the main difference is the fact that virtualbox doesn't support 3d hardware acceleration. but really i run virtualbox so that i can run iquidance, and it works flawlessly.