As mentioned previously, perpetual licensing was the #1 reason. The interface is also cleaner, simpler, and less bloat. Parallels also seem to run a bit slower. Fusion was also more stable and significantly faster in both raw performance and graphics compared to Virtualbox. …
I have only used VMware Fusion, but I selected it compared to its competitors because of the reviews I read and the demos I saw. My decision was based on these factors: (1) reliability - this app is very stable; (2) simultaneous environments - some competitors require you to …
GitHub and Bitbucket are both used by our company for code sharing and are much easier to use for collaborative source code versioning. We internally use GitHub and have some clients who use Bitbucket. In some cases, we have software projects that are very hard to configure, …
I've heard of other/competitive software but frankly once I tried VMware, I never looked back. There is absolutely nothing that I need that this product does not deliver. It's fast, effective and seems to be extremely durable and reliable. My only concern (and minor) might have …
To be fair, with other products, if pricing was a problem for the organization, I would choose VirtualBox, because it works very well on Mac environment and it has most of the features that VMware Fusion has. However, I personally like the way I can run my Microsoft Windows …
As Hyper-V is Windows specific product, and primarily designed for Windows Server, it is difficult to compare Fusion and Hyper-V as they cater to different customer needs.
Comparing Fusion to Parallels is a bit more complicated as they are extremely similar products. Briefly, …
VM Fusion is a leader. It has more functionality and capability for workstation virtualization application. Its unity view and resource management of virtual guests is far superior to any other Mac workstation virtualization applications on the market.
If you only need to run a single Windows VM for a handful of applications and do not need to do testing or run multiple operating systems, Parallels Desktop may be the better choice, especially for less technical end users. Parallels is a bit more user friendly. If you need …
VMware Fusion works much better for us because of the migration capabilities. We use VMware vSphere and the migration/conversion is seamless. Some of the other virtualization application do not covert or migrate VMs onto other platforms as easily.
I personally have used just about every brand of virtualization software from Virtualbox for Windows, Hyper-v for Windows, KVM for Linux, and VMWare for Windows. Personally my favorite is KVM for Linux because it is lightweight and very fast, but as far as virtual machines go, …
VMware fusion is very similar to Parallels but is lower priced, so its my preferred solution for running Windows on a macintosh computer. Vmware is also made by a much more well known company with a large support staff in place, so getting help with vmware fusion is always …
I actually think it's almost exactly the same as VirtualBox. VirtualBox I used for hosting a Linux distribution, and I think that there are inherently more problems to configuring a Linux distribution than there are to a Windows virtual machine, so mostly my issues were due to …
VMware Fusion stacks up against VirtualBox. I selected VMware Fusion for its easy to use UI and clear steps available and documentation available online. It is also a popular tool, so to get an exposure to this tool, I opted to learn about it by myself. Also, there are many …
Virtual Box is a free option, so WMware Fusion is more robust and I'd say more reliable. It's also more appropriate for handling more complex VM setups.
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 …