2 Comments

Summary:

Last week I downloaded VMWare Fusion to see how it compares to Parallels Desktop from a mobile perspective. Remember, when I first looked at Parallels, I noticed that it really hit the battery hard. As I stated back then, it makes sense because you’re essentially running […]

After_vmware_2Last week I downloaded VMWare Fusion to see how it compares to Parallels Desktop from a mobile perspective. Remember, when I first looked at Parallels, I noticed that it really hit the battery hard. As I stated back then, it makes sense because you’re essentially running two machines off of one battery. I’ve spent a few days with VMWare Fusion and replicated the simple test and battery observation and it looks like VMWare Fusion might be the better choice if you’re solely concerned with your battery drain as a mobile user.

Battery_before_vmwareJust like I did with Parallels, I monitored the reported battery life on my MacBook Pro using a fully charged battery. With only a browser running and the display turned down near the minimum, my battery indicator shows a charge of 3 hours and 30 minutes; essentially the same as the first time I did this when it was 3:29.

I then fired up VMWare Fusion and let Vista boot up. I have one gig of RAM dedicated to the virtual machine, just like I did in the original experiment. Additionally, I only have one of the two CPU cores configured for the Vista environment, simply because Parallels can only allocate one core. This is a nice option in VMWare’s product; you can allocate both cores if you want.

After_vmwareOnce Vista was running, I took a look at the battery monitor and see improvement over Parallels; it indicates an additional 39 minutes of run time over the first test. If you recall, a fresh battery only reported 1 hour and 30 minutes with Parallels running; with VMWare Fusion: 2 hours and 9 minutes.

Is this the most scientific test? Of course not; it’s simply a quick indicator of which virtualization product taxes your system battery less and for mobile device users, that’s a great place to start. Since I provided some CPU and memory indicators when doing this with Parallels, here’s the same information with VMWare Fusion.

CPU before VMWare:

Cpu_before_vmware

CPU when running VMWare; by comparison the CPU was 53% idle under Parallels.

Cpu_with_vmware

Memory before running VMWare:

Memory_before_vmware

Memory when running VMWare:

Memory_with_vmware

It’s clear from these base observations that VMWare is taxing the hardware less overall when compared to Parallels. I’ve found my MacBook Pro to run quieter, cooler and longer with Fusion than with Parallels Desktop. I’m still not sold personally on VMWare, however and this isn’t scientific: it’s personal perference.

My limited experience with VMWare Fusion has been less satisfactory than my experience with Parallels. For example: Outlook 2007 has stopped responding several times when sending a message in VMWare; I’ve never had that issue in Parallels. The Vista Start Orb in Fusion takes up much less space than the Vista Taskbar in Parallels, but the Start Orb becomes unresponsive for me over time. Both have a nice integration with Mac OS X; VMWare has Unity, while Parallels has Coherence. Overall however, I’m leaning towards a more favorable integrated experience over the battery life savings. We’ll see what happens as I still have plenty of time in my 30-day trial of Fusion.

  1. Personally this was a no brainer… VMware all the way.

    I’ve been using a Mac at home for about three years now and I’ve finally brought an Intel Mac into the family (so that’s me running G4, G5 and Core2Duo :) ) however, my day job is purely Windows based. Using Fusion, I can work on a VM at home on my Mac, transfer it to a USB stick, carry it into a clients office and using their Windows based hardware, keep on working on it using the free VMware Player / Server or even commercial versions like Workstation / ESX etc etc… to me, that is a killer feature.

    Also, as other virtualisation products tend to compete with VMware, it’s more likely I’ll find tools to convert my Fusion images to other formats, should the time come that Fusion fails to meet my needs.

    Share
  2. Unless you specifically need to run Vista I would suggest going with XP. XP seems to run much better and uses less resources than Vista under virtualization. You also have to factor in the hit to battery life that Vista seems to impose on all systems.

    I own copies of both Parallels and Fusion and Fusion is much snappier and feels a bit more polished. I’m running XP along with Office 2007 with no issues.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post