VMware Fusion 2.x vs Parallels Desktop 4.0 – my thoughts

By mike 2 Opinions, Technology , ,

First, I had a problem with Parallels during an upgrade on my laptop – I was forced to reactivate Windows after the virtual conversion was completed.  This is quite frustrating as one of the great points of virtualization of a system is that the underlying hardware isn’t changing.  I will try to not let this hamper my comments.

Virtual hardware configured as such:

  • 1GB RAM
  • 20GB hard disk, auto-expanding
  • 2 Virtual CPU
  • 3D acceleration turned on
  • Shared networking with host OS
  • Windows XP Professional with SP2 applied, and fully updated patches (12/28/2008)
  • Microsoft Office 2007 Professional
  • VMware VI client (I use a lot of ESXi systems)

Host system is Mac Pro with 2×2 (4) 3.0Ghz cores, 5GB RAM, Mac OS X Leopard 10.5.6, Time Machine was turned off for the duration of the testing, Safari open only to update this blog post, no other tabs or windows open, and finally, terminal was open so I could get measurements.

Virtualization system revisions:

  • Parallels 4.0 3540
  • Fusion 2.0.1 (128865)

I did not use any Coherence or Unity configurations.

Parallels boots Windows XP Professional faster.  This has always been the case and I do not know why.  And I do mean faster, upwards of 2x faster than Fusion booting (as close as possible) the same installation of Windows XP Pro.

The lack of Parallels tools controls is a little odd to take in.  How do you save disk space by compressing the disk image and removing unused blocks?  I’ll have to dig around.  The Parallels KB is lacking in information except to say the tools are no longer required (or something to that affect).  Found it!  You need to use the Parallels Image Tool to do this.  I’ll have to give it a try later.

Fusion is more compatible with my world.  As I work and play with ESX (and ESXi), I am able to move virtual images between my Fusion installation and my production deployments pretty easily.  No, it isn’t seamless by anymeans, but it is doable.  I can create these VPS systems on my laptop, work system, home desktop, and move things back and forth.  I can’t do that with Parallels unfortunately.

Now for quick numbers…

Applications running:

  • Microsoft Outlook 2007 connected to test Exchange 2003 server
  • VIClient (x3) connected to 3 different ESXi systems
  • IE via www.google.com with search return of “Parallels vs Fusion”

Parallels used 1083MB REAL and 1631MB VIRTUAL memory.

Fusion used 1135MB REAL and 1639MB VIRTUAL memory.

I don’t know why the extra ~50MB of REAL memory is being used but 50MB is nothing to worry about.

The amount of hard disk chatter going on when I use Fusion is much much lower.  It seems when Parallels is running my hard disk is constantly seeking.

Measuring disk I/O per second over a 1 minute period, systems idle (I am not doing anything active within the virtual guest systems) shows that Parallels is doing a constant 2-4 disk I/Os per second while waiting at the login prompt, and 12-14 when idle, logged in, with just IE open.  Why?  Even just starting up Parallels causes both my firewire and USB connected external storage to spin up from idle.  This does not happen with Fusion.  By the way, this chatter is only happening when the guest is actually running.  Having Parallels running but without a guest started does not invoke this behavior.

Testing boot up time – I started each guest, then used the ‘Turn off computer’ link to shut it down (from Windows XP), I then hit the start button in each of the virtual applications and timed (as best I could) the boot up of each system to the login prompt.  Each system was booted 4 times this way, and an average was done.

  • Parallels average was 21 seconds
  • Fusions average was 28 seconds

And finally, the subjective test…

While running the applications I listed above, I find that Fusion is smoother (and quieter in terms of disk chatter) than Parallels for my normal day to day activities.  Swapping between Windows applications, screen refresh both feel better under Fusion.  Under Parallels, the Windows guest will, at times, become sluggish and unresponsive for 8-10 seconds.

Running under lighter load (number of applications reduced, or more memory added to each system) created a closer continuity in terms of how things felt.  But most people don’t have 2GB of system RAM to toss at their virtual today.  Even then, Fusion just felt even smoother while Parallels was still lagging behind, it just wasn’t as far behind.

Comments are closed.