Comments on: Parallels Versus VMware Fusion: Why One Over The Other? http://phoneboy.com/1570/parallels-versus-vmware-fusion-why-one-over-the-other Simplifying Network Security, Telecom, Gadgets, and More! Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:36:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: VMware Releases Fusion for Mac, Reaches Out To Blogosphere http://phoneboy.com/1570/parallels-versus-vmware-fusion-why-one-over-the-other/comment-page-1#comment-20484 VMware Releases Fusion for Mac, Reaches Out To Blogosphere Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:01:18 +0000 http://www.phoneboy.com/node/1570#comment-20484 [...] included. Apparently, they wanted an opportunity to answer a question I raised before: Parallels Versus VMware Fusion: Why One Over The Other? I got to ask my question directly and got an [...] [...] included. Apparently, they wanted an opportunity to answer a question I raised before: Parallels Versus VMware Fusion: Why One Over The Other? I got to ask my question directly and got an [...]

]]> By: kriegspiel http://phoneboy.com/1570/parallels-versus-vmware-fusion-why-one-over-the-other/comment-page-1#comment-19515 kriegspiel Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:34:57 +0000 http://www.phoneboy.com/node/1570#comment-19515 I believe Fusion lets you allocate both CPUs to a VM, as well as allowing for the install of 64-bit systems. However, it has been pretty unstable for me on a 1.83 C2D MacBook - the related kernel extensions that stay loaded regardless of whether Fusion is running or not have been responsible for many a kernel panic in the last few weeks. I believe Fusion lets you allocate both CPUs to a VM, as well as allowing for the install of 64-bit systems. However, it has been pretty unstable for me on a 1.83 C2D MacBook – the related kernel extensions that stay loaded regardless of whether Fusion is running or not have been responsible for many a kernel panic in the last few weeks.

]]> By: Aaron Huslage http://phoneboy.com/1570/parallels-versus-vmware-fusion-why-one-over-the-other/comment-page-1#comment-19499 Aaron Huslage Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00:58 +0000 http://www.phoneboy.com/node/1570#comment-19499 I think VMWare has proven to be fairly stable. I switched (pre Parallels 3.0) because Vista performance was awful under Parallels and it was decent under VMWare. My client at the time didn't care...they just wanted things working right. I have no clue why I like VMWare better, but I do. I think VMWare has proven to be fairly stable. I switched (pre Parallels 3.0) because Vista performance was awful under Parallels and it was decent under VMWare. My client at the time didn’t care…they just wanted things working right.

I have no clue why I like VMWare better, but I do.

]]> By: Learning OS X http://phoneboy.com/1570/parallels-versus-vmware-fusion-why-one-over-the-other/comment-page-1#comment-27540 Learning OS X Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.phoneboy.com/node/1570#comment-27540 <!--%kramer-pre%-->to run old applications or the occasional game, having a Windows box might come in handy. Fortunately, Apple and some 3rd parties have devised solutions which allow you to do just that. This videos shows you how you can run Windows XP using Bootcamp,VMWare Fusion or Parallels. All three are decent solutions. Bootcamp has the advantage of completely taking over the system. For games or other performance intensive applications, this is a good solution. Parallels and VMWare Fusion provide what is called hardware<!--%kramer-post%--> links from Technoratito run old applications or the occasional game, having a Windows box might come in handy. Fortunately, Apple and some 3rd parties have devised solutions which allow you to do just that. This videos shows you how you can run Windows XP using Bootcamp,VMWare Fusion or Parallels. All three are decent solutions. Bootcamp has the advantage of completely taking over the system. For games or other performance intensive applications, this is a good solution. Parallels and VMWare Fusion provide what is called hardware

]]>