Parallels 6 or VMWare Fusion 3?

[Jeff Campbell]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.9to5mac.com/26450/parallels-gets-released-with-80-new-features-vmware-cheapens-itself?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+9To5Mac-MacAllDay+(9+to+5+Mac+-+Apple+Intelligence)' target='_blank'>http://www.9to5mac.com/26450/parall...e+Intelligence)</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"The Mac Virtual Machine market heats up today with the release of Parallels 6. The biggest Virtual machine maker for the Mac platform adds 80 new features (most of which we detailed a little early!)."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/at/auto/1284532514.usr105634.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb; margin-left: 150px; margin-right: 150px;" /></p><p>You can upgrade to Parallels 6 for $49.99 USD, or you can take advantage of the <a href="http://www.vmware.com/vmwarestore/fusion_upgrade_promo.html" target="_blank">VMWare offer</a>&nbsp;for Fusion 3, which lets you upgrade from either Parallels or VMWare for $10.00 USD. Which one do you use, VMWare or Parallels?</p>

[djdj]

Parallels is a far, far better product. There's no contest between Parallels 6 vs. Fusion 3. Even though it's considerably more money, in my opinion it's worth it for the extra performance, capability, and stability.

[Michael Knutson]

both actually. two macs, two competitors running the same windows xp virtual machine. one adds a feature, the other gets it fairly quickly. i do prefer vmware fusion slightly because of its capability of running a wide variety of other OSes virtualized, like Solaris and Chrome/Chromium, and pre-packaged full function systems, like a full wiki/server environment. parallels is a bit faster, true, but vmw f is more versatile. i don't have parallels 6 yet, or vmw f 3, but for $10 I will soon ...