Virtual Machines in Mac OS X Compared

The installation of Parallels Desktop 6 works the usual easy Mac way and after a few clicks the software is available for use. After this we installed Windows as a VM straight away. The installation from the USB hard drive completed without any problems - after 18 minutes the login screen for Windows 7 appeared for the first time. Following this came the installation of the so called "Parallels Tools", which is necessary to provide Windows with the drivers for the virtualized hardware components. Via a menu entry the installation USB hard drive can be connected for the Tools.

Similar behavior showed itself with VMware Fusion 3.1. The software is quickly installed and ready to use. After 22 minutes Windows was also ready. In this case VMware Tools should be installed in the virtual machine after the installation for better support. The procedure is the same as with Parallels Desktop 6 - via the menu the installation hard drive can be virtually connected, and the setup starts automatically.

With the third candidate, VirtualBox 4, the installation completed very quickly - with an 80 MB download size, this is the "smallest" candidate in our test. Then during the first attempt to install Windows 7 we were confronted with the disenchantment: The external USB hard drive wasn't recognized, so the installation had to be carried out from the internal Mac DVD drive - 41 minutes. Finally install the "Guest Additions" so that the drivers are available; those that also want to install 3D support will have to start the VM again, and boot into Windows Safe Mode using F8, before the installation of drivers can begin.

VirtualBox 4 was never able to start one of the benchmarks - as a result comparison values are not available.

Parallels Desktop 6 and VMware Fusion 3.1 were also not able to run the benchmarks "3DMark 11" and "3DMark Vantage", as could be expected, since only a DX9 compatible graphics card was simulated.

The familiar "3DMark 05", "3DMark 06" and "PCMark Vantage" run on Parallels Desktop 6 as well as VMware Fusion 3.1. Along with these benchmarks some less demanding games such as "Counter Strike Source", "The Setters 2 - The Next Generation", and some with medium hardware requirements such as "Age of Empire III" and "Call of Duty 4" were tested at the high end of the scale. In VirtualBox 4 CSS played smoothly, but after Settlers started both stopped working properly. CSS was also not playable, since the mouse control in the VM reacted similarly to a joystick. Parallels Desktop 6 and VMware Fusion 3.1 were able to run all the tested games and benchmarks, and the following evaluations clearly show that players or users with 3D ambitions should opt for Parallels Desktop 6. In the 3D area Parallels Desktop 6 takes the lead by a sizable margin. VMware Fusion 3.1 also provides 3D support, and only VirtualBox 4 faltered with most of the tests and therefore isn't an alternative.

But not only gamers and users with 3D ambitions are on the lookout for a virtualization solution. How do things look when it comes to programs that are used on a daily basis? Microsoft Office 2011, Firefox and InfranView were run in all the VMs and tested for their speed. Further to this, network access and the streaming of full HD videos (playback in the VM) and their local playback was tested. The verdict from this is clear: All the VMs were able to run the software and we hardly noticed any difference in speed. The programs worked without problems, and are the same as on a dedicated Windows computer. Program start times are more or less the same in all cases, and aren't different from those on a standard Windows computer. VirtualBox is the fastest at loading the virtual machine, but otherwise always needs a few seconds longer than its competitors. The integration of the virtual machines is also very good, and files can be very easily exchanged between Mac and Windows using drag-and-drop or the shared folders. Only VirtualBox 4 disappointed due to the missing drag-and-drop support. In addition to this VirtualBox 4 often led to an incomprehensibly high CPU load, and proved to be unsuitable for full HD videos.

Those that intend to use the virtual machine exclusively for working can make due with the freeware alternative, while multimedia purposes unfortunately preclude the free alternative from the available choices.

A more detailed look leads to the selection of the VM for working to be VMware Fusion 3.1. The reason: It is well integrated into the host system in terms of performance and user friendliness, and doesn't lack in any of these aspects compared to that of Parallels. The fact that Parallels Desktop 6 has the advantage in all the 3D tests doesn't apply to this application area. Further to this VMware Fusion 3.1 proved to be more stable in our test. Parallels Desktop for instance greeted us with the Blue Screen following an installation, one benchmark caused the VM to crash, and when accessing the network with Parallels Desktop 6 it once also completely froze. Although this was one occasion which was not reproducible, the impression from Fusion was notably better in this respect, since it ran smoothly during the whole test without a single hiccup.