Windows/PC simulator for Mac

M

MISMCSA

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
2,186
I'm looking to get a new laptop. I've had Windows based laptops for many years, and I'm interested in moving to Mac. However, I still have some business products which won't work on a Mac. Are there good simulators out there? Which would you recommend?

Thanks
 
They're not called simulators, they're called virtual machines. Parallels, VirtualBox (free), or VMWare Fusion are the apps you'd be interested in.
 
I've tried parallels and fusion and i think i like fusion better because parallel didnt work really work well for me on a macbok pro i just got
been a pc user for years too so i decided to try a mac and i'm loving it!
 
I too prefer Fusion, although I think Parallels' "Unity" mode or whatever they call it was superior. I use Fusion because it's compatible with the rest of the VMWare products I use on other platforms.
 
Another vote for VMware Fusion. It's a solid virtualization platform and very stable - I highly recommend it. Also don't forget that Intel Macs can dual-boot a "real" OS using Boot Camp (included in OS X).

-Brian
 
virtualization is convenient if you just need to do something on the fly, but i'd rather bootcamp if you're going to be using windows for extended periods.

parallels on my unibody mbp even runs kind of sluggish on windows xp.
 
bloo said:
parallels on my unibody mbp even runs kind of sluggish on windows xp.
Click to expand...

Something is wrong then. XP running in VMware Fusion on the older iMac in my sig runs just as well as it does if I boot into it.

One incredibly useful feature that I know VMware Fusion offers, not sure about the others, is if you install Windows natively via Bootcamp, you can run that installation in Fusion. So you have the option of virtualizing it in OS X, or booting directly into it. Very handy depending on the type of work you need to do in Windows.
 
criccio said:
Something is wrong then. XP running in VMware Fusion on the older iMac in my sig runs just as well as it does if I boot into it.

One incredibly useful feature that I know VMware Fusion offers, not sure about the others, is if you install Windows natively via Bootcamp, you can run that installation in Fusion. So you have the option of virtualizing it in OS X, or booting directly into it. Very handy depending on the type of work you need to do in Windows.
Click to expand...

Parallels will also use your BC install. I had graphic issues with fusion and unity (using an ACD30 may have been the cause) so I went back to parallels. Both have merits.
 
Another vote for Fusion. I admit though I haven't used Parallels since their initial release as it had a terrible memory leak. I ran a Windows 95 VM with only 64MB of RAM and a memory usage meter running. After 2 days that same VM was consuming over 1.5 GB of RAM.

Really though, you don't lose very much running a Boot camp Windows install (VERY easily created, wizard based and walks you through the process) in Fusion or Parallels. You take a very small performance hit (about 10%, usually around 5% on average) and don't have full 3D acceleration beyond Direct X 9.0c. It's not enough for high end gaming but then again you don't go Mac because you're a gamer.
 
I've tried all three, and I have ended up with Fusion. VirtualBox is nice because it's free, but it is rather unpolished. Parallels comes in a close second, but due to the overall feel of the app (look at that fucking icon, for one :p ), I'll stick with Fusion.
 
another vote for VMWare Fusion.

I've tried all 3 extensively and find Fusion to be the most stable and easiest to use with the best balance of features and simplicity. I've had some stability issues with Parallels but it does have the 'coolest' features. VirtualBox is nice and free but is still isn't as complete as the other two, although it is gaining quickly, I imagine within the next year it will be a much stronger competitor.
 
aaronlidman said:
VirtualBox is nice and free but is still isn't as complete as the other two, although it is gaining quickly, I imagine within the next year it will be a much stronger competitor.
Click to expand...

That is assuming that it even survives once Oracle starts moving in.
 
I'm putting in another vote for Fusion, much more refined that Parallels offerings IMO.

I used Parallels up until Fusion came out and even upgraded to Parallels 3.0 and 4.0 to try it out, but it always fell short.
 
I have both Parallels and VMWare, and VirtualBox. All three will do what you want. I switched to VMWare because we are starting to use VMWare ESX, ESXI, and Server more and more at work, so I had a need to be able to manipulate those other VMWare images.

Parallels is faster in a lot of ways with the last article I saw that did tests between VMWare and Parallels.

At home on my Mac I am using VirtualBox, and it works, like others said it is unpolished. I used VirtualBox at home, because I am too cheap to buy my own copy of VMWare.
 
I will agree with that, there was an article by either Gizmodo or Engadget where they tested VMware Fusion against Parallels and Parallels came out on top each time.

Regardless, I use VMware for the compatibility.
 
I've only used Parallels, but it's all I need to run the basic, low memory windows programs (like software for school and internet explorer)
 
thepirat said:
I've only used Parallels, but it's all I need to run the basic, low memory windows programs (like software for school and internet explorer)
Click to expand...

Why would you run IE in that? Why not just run it on the Mac OS?


To the OP, why not just dual boot? You can use Vista or XP with bootcamp and it's real easy to install. That way you can use the MacOS or Windows instead of running one on top of the other (which runs slower, even on a fast machine).

Bootcamp, ftw!

EDIT: Unless of course you want to run them both at the same time, then Parallels is good.
 
They stopped updating IE for OSX for a long time.

I personally use IE6/7/8 with Multiple IE in XP Sp3 through VMware Fusion
 
Yeah, for the web programs I need to use with IE the OSX version is too outdated. I like being able to just have an IE window open when I need to use it, without rebooting into windows.
 
I have a bunch of machine running Sun's VirtualBox. It's nice, free, and comparable to the others, with a feature or two (such as audio input) missing, but has a wide range of support and includes common major features such as seamless mode. You can pass drives and devices to the guest OS easily as well.

Don't really have any complaints with it, and I've had it on about 7 machines for ~6 months with Windows XP as the guest OS - mostly mac mini's with 2.0's and 2.5gb of ram.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top