• Virtualbox For Mac Free Download
• Parallels Desktop Vs Virtualbox
• Oracle Virtualbox

Represented by their respective products, VMware and Parallels, Inc. are the two commercial competitors in the Mac consumer platform virtualization market. Both products are based on hypervisor technology and allow users to run an additional 32- or 64-bit x86operating system in a virtual machine alongside Mac OS X on an Intel-powered Mac. The similarity in features and functionality between VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop for Mac has given occasion for much comparison.

• 52009 Benchmark tests

I prefer to have a real sandbox when Windows is Windows and Mac is Mac, so I really don't care to have my Windows applications boxes mixed between my Mac apps, I don't care to double click a Word file on the Mac Finder to have it opened by Word inside the Windows environment.

Features[edit]

Minimum system requirements[edit]

2007 Benchmark tests[edit]

On August 16, 2007, CNET published the results of several benchmarks^[1] in which Fusion demonstrated better performance than Parallels Desktop for Mac in SMP-aware applications, which Fusion supports while Parallels does not. It should also be noted that Boot Camp is a tool for natively booting Windows XP on Intel Macintosh and is not a virtualization product. This comparison is of limited value today, as Parallels Desktop has had 4 major upgrades and VMware Fusion has had 3.

This comparison was tested on an eight-core, 2.66 GHz MacPro running Mac OS X 10.4.10, Parallels Desktop 3.0 for Mac (build 4560) and VMware Fusion 1.0 (build 51348). Fusion and Parallels were both set to 1,024 MB of system memory and a 32 GB hard disk. Fusion was set to 128 MB of graphics memory, and Parallels Desktop for Mac was set to 64 MB of graphics memory (the maximum for each at that time).^[1]

2008 Benchmark tests[edit]

In Volume 24, Issue 02 of MacTech, the editors published the results of one-step and task tests between VMware Fusion 1.0, Parallels Desktop 3.0 and Boot Camp and used a PC running Windows XP as a baseline comparison in a native PC environment.^[2]

• One-step Test: After clicking the mouse or pressing a key, this test requires no further human action.
• Task Test: This tests the interaction between Mac OS X and the virtual environment and requires multiple tests throughout the process.

MacTech found that the faster the physical host computer, the more similarly Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion performed. MacTech did not test multiple processor performance. The following graphs displays the results in seconds. Shorter bars indicate faster performance.

Each test was run on a MacBook (2 GB RAM; 1.83 GHz Core Duo processor), a MacBook Pro (4 GB RAM; 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo processor) and a Mac Pro (4 GB RAM; Quad Core configuration with two 2.66 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon processors). MacTech tested Parallels Desktop 3.0 for Mac Build 5160 and VMware Fusion 1.0 Build 51348.All tests were done on clean host systems with new installations of Mac OS X 10.4.10 and Office installations and included all of the most up-to-date patches. No third party software was installed other than Mac OS X, VMware Fusion, Parallels Desktop, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Adobe Reader and Microsoft Office.

2009 Benchmark tests[edit]

In March, 2009, Volume 25, Issue 04, MacTech^[3] published the results of a new series of benchmark tests that compared the performance between VMware Fusion 2.0.1 and Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac (build 3540), both running Mac OS X 10.5.5.

In most of MacTech’s tests, Parallels Desktop performed 14-20% faster than Fusion; however, Fusion ran 10% faster than Parallels Desktop when running Windows XP 32-bit on 2 virtual processors.^[4]

The tests were performed on the White MacBook, MacBook Pro, iMac and MacPro. Both Fusion and Parallels Desktop were optimized for virtual machine performance. MacTech’s test included launch and CPU tests, File and Network IO, Footprint, Application Launch, Application Performance and 3D and HD Graphics. In many cases, tests were performed after both Adam and Successful launches and were timed using a stopwatch.

¹ 3D Games tested were Civilization IV: Colonization and Portal. In Civilization, Parallels Desktop has faster FPS (Frames Per Second) and performed better on slower machines while Fusion has better, more detailed graphics. Fusion has difficulty showing the startup video, but Parallels Desktop's graphics are not as rich. When running Portal, Fusion is faster but its graphics are visibly lighter, while Parallels Desktop has better graphics and visual details.^[6]

Cross-platform task tests[edit]

MacTech’s cross platform tests timed how long it took users to perform multi-step tasks that moved data between Mac OS X and Windows. VMware Fusion, which is designed for increased isolation from the host, requires more manual steps to move data between the host and the virtual environment. Parallels Desktop, which is designed to run transparently with the Mac OS X host, requires fewer steps to perform the same tasks. Therefore, Parallels Desktop was faster.

Networking and file I/O tests[edit]

Parallels Desktop occasionally displayed lag anomalies while VMware Fusion's virtual drive performance was very close to that of a physical drive. VMware Fusion preferred a bridged connection for reliable performance, and Parallels Desktop was consistent regardless of the type of virtual network adaptor used.

Simultaneous use of VM and host OS[edit]

Parallel Desktop 5 always uses wired memory for hosted OS, while VMWare Fusion 3.0 uses active memory that can be swapped. Giving better performance to hosted VM, this leaves less memory to host OS programs and causes more swapping if you use VM and host OS programs at the same time.

2010 Benchmark tests[edit]

In 2010 MacTech,^[7] Volume 26, Issue 01, published the results of a new series of benchmark tests showing a performance advantage for Parallels Desktop 5 across all subcategories, with an average of 30% faster.

ITPro's November 2010 performance testing results were mixed, with Parallels being slightly faster, overall.^[8]

2015 Benchmark tests[edit]

In 2015 TekRevue,^[9] published the results of an extensive series of benchmark tests showing a performance advantage for VMware Fusion 8, across most subcategories, and in particular the 3D ones.

Quoting: 'If you look at our Parallels vs. Fusion benchmark results simply by the numbers, then Fusion 8 is the clear winner, taking 11 out of 18 tests and pushing on three more. ... Some users are looking for a virtualization app to play Windows-only games, or crunch data in a Windows-only CPU-intensive app. Those folks should probably go with Fusion 8 this year.'

2016 Reviews[edit]

ARS Technica reviewed both Fusion and Parallels updates in August 2016.^[10][11]

2017 Info[edit]

VMware Fusion Pro says it supports DirectX 10 on its website while listing system requirements...^[12]

'For DirectX 10 or OpenGL 3.3 support in a virtual machine:

Host OS:macOS 10.10 or greater

Hardware:Intel: HD4000 or newer Nvidia: 650M or newer AMD: HD 5770 or newer'

See also[edit]

• Comparison of platform virtualization software

References[edit]

1. ^ ^abBegun, Daniel (2007-08-17). 'Inside CNET Labs: Windows virtual machine performance on the Mac'. CNET. Retrieved 2007-10-04.
2. ^Ticktin, Neil. 'Virtualization Benchmarking How do Boot Camp, Parallels Desktop, and VMware Fusion stack up?'. MacTech. Retrieved November 28, 2017.
3. ^Neil, Neil (2009). 'Head-to-Head: Parallels Desktop for Mac vs. VMware Fusion'. MacTech.
4. ^Neil, Neil (2009). 'Head-to-Head: Parallels Desktop for Mac vs. VMware Fusion (cont.)'. MacTech. p. 1.
5. ^Neil, Neil (2009). 'Head-to-Head: Parallels Desktop for Mac vs. VMware Fusion (cont.)'. MacTech. p. 2.
6. ^Ticktin, Neil (2009). 'Head-to-Head: Parallels Desktop for Mac vs. VMware Fusion (cont.)'. MacTech. p. 3.
7. ^Ticktin, Neil. 'Head-to-Head: Parallels Desktop for Mac vs. VMware Fusion'. MacTech. Retrieved November 28, 2017.
8. ^Lu, Alan (10 November 2010). 'Head to Head: Parallels Desktop 6 vs VMware Fusion 3'. ITPro. Dennis Publishing.
9. ^Tanous, Jim. '2015 VM Benchmarks: Parallels 11 vs. Fusion 8 vs. VirtualBox 5'. TekRevue. Retrieved November 28, 2017.
10. ^https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/parallels-for-mac-has-a-new-version-but-not-many-reasons-to-upgrade/
11. ^https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/vmware-says-were-not-dead-updates-fusion-and-workstation-for-free/
12. ^http://store.vmware.com/store/vmware/en_US/DisplayProductDetailsPage/ThemeID.2485600/productID.323690000

If you need to run Windows inside OS X, you have three options: VirtualBox, VMware, and Parallels. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses, and different use cases where one’s better than another. Let’s break down when each is best and for what.

The Contenders

Virtual machines allow you to run operating systems like Windows inside of OS X, alongside your normal Mac setup. Once you set up a virtual machine, you install the operating system you want and you can use it right from your Mac desktop, no rebooting necessary. There are three popular options for doing this:

• VirtualBox (Free): VirtualBox is easily the nerdiest of the three options we’re comparing here. It’s packed with all sorts of customization options for your virtual machines, but doesn’t have any fancy integration features like Parallels and VMware. Essentially, VirtualBox allows you to create a virtual machine that’ll run Windows, and that’s about it.
• VMware Fusion($79.99 for unlimited Macs): VMware Fusion walks the line between Parallels and VirtualBox, offering up a ton of options for tweaking your virtual machine, but still providing plenty of hand-holding for the initial setup process.
• Parallels($79.99 for one Mac): VMware Fusion and Parallels are very similar, but Parallels guides you through the installation process more closely. It also focuses on home users, who simply need an easy way to use Windows on their Mac without rebooting or getting another computer.

Virtualbox For Mac Free Download

Advertisement

We’d be remiss here not to also mention Boot Camp, which runs Windows on a separate partition of your hard drive. Unlike virtual machines, Boot Camp requires rebooting your computer, and you can’t use both operating systems at the same time. It’s a bit less convenient, but it means your Windows installation can take full advantage of your Mac’s hardware, giving you better performance. We won’t be including it in today’s showdown—which is specifically about the different virtualization options out there—but it’s worth mentioning as an option for running Windows on a Mac.

Now let’s dig into some of the specifics of each.

The Beginner's Guide to Creating Virtual Machines with VirtualBox

Virtual machines can seem juuuuust a bit too geeky for most otherwise computer-friendly people.…

Advertisement

Ease of Setup

Advertisement

Virtual machines aren’t like other apps. Setup goes beyond just installing the app, so the ease of the process is pretty important.

Let’s start with VirtualBox, since it’s the most hands-on of the bunch. You start by creating a virtual machine and selecting the operating system you plan to run (Windows, Linux, etc). From there, you’ll need to tweak a bunch of system settings, including how many processor cores the virtual machine gets, how much memory and video memory it gets from the total installed in your system. Thankfully, we have a guide to help you through the whole process. Once you have all of that configured, you’ll install the operating system just like you would on any computer. That means you’ll need an installation disc, USB drive, or ISO file to install from.

Advertisement

Both VMware and Parallels have setup wizards that guide you through the process a little more. Beyond simply installing a virtual machine, both allow you to import your Boot Camp partition if you have one, or migrate an old Windows PC to your Mac. Parallels (pictured above) guides you through the installation process a lot more, and you’ll get the option to automatically optimize Parallels for productivity or gaming. Of course, you always can move past that screen and install Windows from scratch if you prefer.

They’re all simple, though Parallels has a bit of an advantage for new users since it holds your hand throughout the process. In terms of user friendliness, Parallels was consistently the strongest of the three we tested. That makes it a great solution for anyone not interested in screwing around with settings.

Advertisement

How Do I Install Windows 8 in a Virtual Machine?

Dear Lifehacker,After seeing some of the interesting new features in Windows 8, I want to give it…

Additional Features That Make All the Difference

Advertisement

While each of these three programs do fundamentally the same thing, a handful of small features set them apart from one another.

All three apps feature some type of windowed mode support (see image above). This allows you to run a single Windows application in its own window on your Mac desktop, so it feels a little more like a native Mac app. VMware calls this Unity, Parallels calls this Coherence, and VirtualBox calls it Seamless Mode. When an app is in windowed mode, you can copy and paste information between Windows and Mac apps, move and resize them, and close an app without shutting down Windows.

Advertisement

Parallels and VMware both allow you to open up individual Windows programs directly from the Dock, which makes the whole process very easy. VirtualBox doesn’t support this feature, instead requiring you to open up the whole virtual machine to pick our your app of choice.

The similarities don’t stop there. If you’re running Windows 10, Parallels and VMware both give you access to Cortana to issue voice commands, even if Windows isn’t in focus. They also both support DirectX 10, which means they can run most games, though good performance isn’t guaranteed (more on that in the next section). VirtualBox doesn’t support any cool little tricks like this. Instead, it merely performs the simple task of running Windows as a whole.

Advertisement

The feature differences between the Parallels and VMware are pretty subtle. For example, Parallels supports OS X’s Quick Look feature in Windows, while VMware doesn’t. Conversely, if you happen to have a fancy new iMac, VMware supports 5K monitors natively. Most of this stuff is pretty minor though, and honestly if you stripped away the logos, I’d have a hard time telling a difference between the two.

If you want a full comparison of everything in VMware Fusion and Parallels, Wikipedia has a handy chart that’s worth a look, though it’s not completely up-to-date.

Advertisement

Everything You Can Ask Cortana to Do in Windows 10

Cortana is easily one of the coolest new features of Windows 10. You’re probably already familiar…

Performance and Benchmarks

Since virtual machines have to share resources with the host OS, performance is very important. Thankfully, TekRevue has benchmarked all three programs for a variety of tasks. The current version of VMware outperforms the others in nearly every category, while VirtualBox is way behind its competitors. Of course, there’s more to it than just that.

Parallels Desktop Vs Virtualbox

Advertisement

In 18 different tests, VMware took top honors in 11, most notably in the graphics benchmarks. Performance margins were typically pretty close and as a whole, Parallels tends to do best in CPU-related tests where VMware does best in graphics-related tests.

The general trend of CPU versus graphics runs throughout their tests. Parallels tends to boot faster than VMware, transfer files faster, and saves battery life better than VMware. In turn, VMware benchmarks much higher for 3D graphics and for gaming, especially with OpenGL. VirtualBox consistently lags behind in both CPU and 3D performance.

Advertisement

The Verdict: VirtualBox for a Free, Bare-Bones Experience. VMware or Parallels for an Easy-to-Use, More Integrated One

Advertisement

If you just need Windows to run that one old app that doesn’t require a ton of 3D rendering or other complicated processing, VirtualBox is what you want. Beyond that, feature-wise, the two paid options are very similar, and the difference is mainly price and how many Macs you need to install on. If you’re planning on running anything in 3D or want to install Windows on more than one Mac, then go with VMware. If you’re more interested in productivity software and battery life, and don’t mind the one Mac restriction, then Parallels is your best bet.

Oracle Virtualbox

All of this changes from year to year, too. Parallels and VMware both require that you buy an annual license every year to get updates that pack in performance gains and feature improvements. These annual updates are great in theory, but they’re not cheap, and they come every year without fail. This is a bit tiresome, especially when they lock out newer versions of Windows behind those paid upgrades. Provided you don’t need to be on the cutting edge, they’re usually pretty incremental, though, and you’re okay skipping one or two—as long as a new version of Windows doesn’t come out.

Advertisement

Regardless, the good news here is that while VirtualBox is free, even VMware Fusion and Parallels have trial periods so you can check them all out. We definitely recommend doing so before you drop the cash. You don’t have to try out all three options, but if your needs are pretty limited, start with VirtualBox before considering VMware or Parallels.