Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

VMware Fusion goes Beta

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the toys-for-christmas dept.

Apple 153

Rahul writes "Fusion is a new VMware product that enables Intel-based Macs to run Windows and Linux in virtual machines on Mac OS X. The Mac virtualization market is presently dominated by Parallels and it will be worth watching if VMware can gain the mindshare despite its late entry. Ars Technica reports: 'The nice thing about VMWare Fusion is that it already supports some of the stuff that the Parallels Beta2 released yesterday just added, such as USB 2.0 and most USB devices, CD/DVD drive support, and drag-and-drop between environments (unless the guest environment is Linux, that is). You can also run multiple Fusion environments at once or assign multiple processors to your virtual machine(s), if you're into that sort of thing.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Competition is a GREAT thing (2, Interesting)

Wulfstan (180404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17343866)

Although I guess I can sympathize with Parallels, who have spotted a niche and gone for it, I think that competition is great. It will be particularly interesting to see whether or not VMWare charge for this or whether it's just a freebie a la VMWare Player on the PC - I suppose it's likely they'll charge for it though. In any case, I'll be buying it, along with my Parallels license. And hey, may the best product win.

Re:Competition is a GREAT thing (4, Informative)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#17343960)

It's set up like their workstation product (not free) and in the FAQ for the release they state that a final price has not been set. During the VMWare Server beta it was made clear Server was going to be free after the beta for both personal and commercial use.

Multi-CPU support? (4, Interesting)

jarich (733129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17343908)

Parallels runs great and the windowed mode is awesome... but if this version of VM Ware actually supports both of the cores on my MBP, it might make a huge performance improvement.

I've downloaded it and have a VMWare image downloading...

The Parallels tools have things like image import that VMWare is missing though.

Re:Multi-CPU support? (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344188)

So exactly what is image import? I can't find it searching through the user manual from parallels website.

Re:Multi-CPU support? (4, Informative)

jarich (733129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344434)

I'll have to dig it out (and I'm on a different computer right now).

It's a tool for importing a VMWare image, or an image from a real Windows box.

VMWare is coming late to the game, but this is a feature they'll have to match.

Re:Multi-CPU support? (5, Informative)

Hadley (71701) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345314)

VMware is not at all late to the game - they have been doing x86 virtualization really well for almost 10 years.

To create a VMware image from a real Windows box, use the VMware Converter [vmware.com] (a free download).

There is also a free importer that converts images from other formats (not sure if it supports parallels).

Re:Multi-CPU support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17345786)

There is also a MULTITUDE of tools out there, but most are intended for the enterprise level, and in fact are where VMWare makes the most money.

They really do not care about the hobbyist/laptop owner that wants to run "the other OS" every day for a little while, except insomuch as it gets the name "VMWare" in their heads when it comes time to sell you what they REALLY want to sell you:

VMWare REALLY wants the enterprise "buy a huge Xeon Dual 8 way with a ton of RAM and a bank of SAN space and consolidate all your low-use 1001 NT, 2000, and 2k3, and random Linux servers that are killing your data center for space, power, and general maintainability."

I know this because they're all over us and me right now to do this.

They have, or there is a 3rd party tool that will create a VMWare virtual machine from an Acronis full backup of a server, which is the REAL slick way of getting it done. Take your nightly backup onto your SAN space, and just start up the machine from that. Slick when it works.

Re:Multi-CPU support? (1)

jarich (733129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345926)

VMware is not at all late to the game - they have been doing x86 virtualization really well for almost 10 years.

Absolutely correct. I was thinking late to the game on the Intel Mac platform. Sorry... I should've been more specific. They are quite late on Intel Macs, but as another poster noted, competition is a good thing.

Re:Multi-CPU support? (2, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345164)

Heres something I found in the furums [parallels.com] :

Hello all!

Now you can migrate your Windows PC, VMware or Virtual PC Virtual Machines to Parallels Virtual Machines.

You will need Parallels Transporter Beta for this. The Mac version is bundled into Parallels Desktop for Mac Beta Build 3036. The Windows version containing both Parallels Transporter and Parallels Transporter Agent can be downloaded from here.

1. Usage models.

* Migrate remote Windows PC over network directly to VM on your Mac/PC
1) Install Parallels Transporter Agent on your Windows PC you would like to migrate
2) Run Parallels Transporter on your Mac/PC
3) Migrate using few easy steps of Wizard

* Migrate Windows PC locally or to any removable media and move the resulted VM to Mac/PC
1) Install both Parallels Transporter and Parallels Transporter Agent on your Windows PC you would like to migrate
2) Run Parallels Transporter on that Windows PC
3) Migrate using few easy steps of Wizard
4) Deliver the resulting virtual machine to Mac/PC using any removable media

* Converting VMware Workstation/Server or Microsoft Virtual PC VMs to Parallels Desktop/Workstation-compatible format and move resulting Virtual Machine to Mac/PC
1) Install Parallels Transporter on your Windows PC
2) Run Parallels Transporter
3) Convert VM using few easy steps of Wizard
4) Deliver the resulting virtual machine to Mac/PC using any removable media

2. Supported OSes.

Parallels Transporter Agent is the provider which allows online migration of Windows PC:

* Windows 2000
* Windows XP
* Windows 2003

Parallels Transporter is the application which finally creates Parallels virtual machines:

* Windows 2000
* Windows XP
* Windows 2003
* Windows Vista (experimental support)
* Mac OS X

We are extremely interested in your feedback - please share your thoughts or technical issues to beta@parallels.com mailbox.

Best regards,
Tim and all the Parallels Team

Re:Multi-CPU support? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17344774)

See the free VMware Converter: http://www.vmware.com/products/beta/converter/ [vmware.com]

Re:Multi-CPU support? (1)

EXMSFT (935404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345412)

That's not the same thing - this also picks up an image off of a Windows PC... though frankly the Parallels tool sounds rather hacky.

Re:Multi-CPU support? (2, Informative)

yabos (719499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345214)

Erm, are you saying Parallels doesn't support both cores because mine sure does.

Re:Multi-CPU support? (1)

jarich (733129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345970)

You sure? I could've sworn the docs said the client OS only sees a single CPU. It might appear to spread the load over both cores (for a GUI cpu load tool), but that doesn't mean it's using them both. Have you seen both cores pegged by Parallels? I haven't.

Also, from a quick search...

This link says it doesn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_virtual _machines/ [wikipedia.org]

This link says This may be, at least in part, because the Parallels software doesn't support SMP for the virtualized instance of Windows. at http://www.networkcomputing.com/showArticle.jhtml? articleID=187002626/ [networkcomputing.com]

I'm not saying I'm sure you're wrong (as I'm not in front of my Mac at the moment), but it's not what I recall.

Re:Multi-CPU support? (2, Interesting)

yabos (719499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17346022)

I guess you're right. Mine says I have a Core2Duo so I thought it saw both cores, but I just downloaded CPU-Z and it shows only one core.

Re:Multi-CPU support? (0, Offtopic)

kjart (941720) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345572)

Offtopic Parallels question: why is the PC/Linux version $30 cheaper than the version for OSX? They both look like basically the same program to me.

Re:Multi-CPU support? (2, Informative)

mithras the prophet (579978) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345660)

The Mac version includes the Compressor, which otherwise sells separately for $50.

Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (5, Insightful)

2ms (232331) | more than 7 years ago | (#17343924)

I would like to have a Mac, yet I am a mechanical engineer who works with CAD all the time. None of the industry standard CAD softwares are available for Mac. Thus, even if I had a Mac, I would have to spend more time booted into Windows than OSX. Whoever can provide 3D acceleration for PC apps in OSX will part the clouds for a whole new throng of would-be Mac users who are trapped in Windows.

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (2, Informative)

mrycar (578010) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344170)

UGS NX is supported on OS X and Linux.

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17345112)

No, you misunderstand. When anyone says "industry standard CAD" all they really mean is "I can't get autoCAD for the mac, therefore macs suck".

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (1)

TheGavster (774657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345666)

Well, it *is* an industry standard. There's a bunch of parametric tools out there fighting over that space, but for what it does there's nothing in the leagure of AutoCAD. So, when someone says "I can't get AutoCAD for Mac, therefore Mac does not fit my needs", they're probably right.

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (2, Informative)

JoshWurzel (320371) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345752)

Um, no. AutoCAD does not even exist in the parametric 3D modelling area. That field is dominated by Pro/E, solidworks, CATIA, and UGS.

That doesn't mean that someone can't need AutoCAD and declare that the mac is insufficient because its not available, but my money says that AutoCAD will run better in emulation than the other packages simply because it doesn't have the 3D capabilities the others do.

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (5, Informative)

revscat (35618) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344208)

Inside Mac Games had an interview [insidemacgames.com] recently with a PR guy from Parallels where he says "The goal is to have OpenGL and DirectX support in our next version, which should be in beta around the turn of the year."

You know, I'd really be curious to see how some of the CAD programs behave on a PowerMac with Parallels. Those are really fast machines. It would be an expensive experiment, but you're not the first CAD user I've heard mention this. A friend of mine works at an architecture firm, and he also mentioned the lack of CAD software available on the Mac as being the main reason he couldn't get one.

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (0)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344394)

Not to pick nits, but parallels cannot run on a power mac. Power mac's are all powerpc machines - hence the "power" in their name. Apple has dropped the power monicker from all their product lines - the high end desktop mac is now known as "mac pro".

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344602)

Power mac's are all powerpc machines - hence the "power" in their name.
Apple used Power in it's computers' names before they used powerpc processors.

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (2, Informative)

Pfhor (40220) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344778)

Nope, you are wrong. Power Mac was first introduced with the powerpc line of desktop computers.

PowerBook was a term apple was using for their laptops, which did not start with powerpc chips.

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17345354)

You said he was wrong. Then proceeded to reiterate what he said. Good job.

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (2, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344676)

Power mac's are all powerpc machines - hence the "power" in their name.

To pick nits, Powermacs are not named because of PowerPC. Just like Powerbooks are not named because of PPC (there were Powerbooks long before the PPC chip). They are so named because they are "power user" machines. iMacs also had PowerPC chips in them, but were not called "iPowerMacs." Xserves had PPC chips in them, but were not name Xpowerservers.

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (1)

tgraupmann (679996) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344872)

Push for DirectX 9.0C support. A lesser DirectX by itself won't play most games.

I've run Pro/E on a Mac Pro (4, Informative)

JoshWurzel (320371) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344876)

I had the fortune to being able to test Parallels and Pro/Engineer on my father's Dual-2.66 Ghz Quad Core mac pro. It has 5 gigs of ram, a radeon X1900 with 512 MB of ram, and a 23" cinema display.

Let me tell you how it behaves: Not great.

I'd imagine for small changes and assemblies its probably usable, but I pulled up my largest project to really put it through its paces. This is an assembly with hundreds of parts in it, mostly sheetmetal. Parallels seriously needs 3D acceleration. It is also worth noting that the only graphics card on any mac that is listed as supported by Pro/E (see PTC's website) is the Quadro FX 4500, which is a $1700 BTO option.

I was able to select and redefine features, but screen regens were horribly slow. Pan/Zoom/Rotate was totally unavailable despite the multi-button mouse and Parallels wouldn't recognize my spaceball at all (yes, I installed the driver software).

I wasn't able to get boot camp running because the X1900 + 23" display does not work with boot camp presently (apparently this is a widespread issue discussed on the Apple forums).

I'll be testing it on my macbook pro (core 2 duo 2.33 ghz) next week in both boot camp and parallels, though I don't expect much performance. Our Pro/E guru at work tells me that the graphics card is going to be the biggest problem for performance if its not an officially-supported card (and the X1600 on my macbook isn't on that list either).

Despite all the performance lags, I was so excited just to be running Pro/E on a mac that I imagine it can only get better from here. And if not...I don't really want to do work at home anyway! ;) I plan to keep testing it, though, because its important to me and I have the resources to do it. For some reason, no one else does.

Re:I've run Pro/E on a Mac Pro (1)

MaximXygo (757609) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345302)

For such a beast of a machine, that thing is *horribly* lacking in RAM, which is the culprit of the poor performance. Throw a few gigs at it... you need it for things in generally, but *especially* when running an OS within an OS.

Re:I've run Pro/E on a Mac Pro (1)

EXMSFT (935404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345424)

Methinks you read the wrong number.

Re:I've run Pro/E on a Mac Pro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17345448)

5 gigs of RAM is more than "a few".

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17346014)

You know, I'd really be curious to see how some of the CAD programs behave on a PowerMac with Parallels.

Probably rather poorly, since Parallels won't run on a PowerMac.

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (1)

PetrusMagnusII (309326) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344474)

What about VectorWorks? No need for fancy emulation software when it runs native ;) However I don't know how great it's mechanical face is, I only use it for Architecture.

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (1)

EXMSFT (935404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345436)

Don't suggest replacing the wall when someone asks for a hammer.

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (1)

C. Alan (623148) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345458)

I run Autocad Land development desktop on Parallels on my Imac. I do mainly 2d stuff, but it works great.

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (0, Flamebait)

Micklewhite (1031232) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345758)

They make Maya for OSX but for whatever reason I'm not running out to buy a brand new Apple computer to run the program on. I have some trouble understanding the logic behind spending $2000 on a computer to run a program that you already own and use on another perfectly good computer just because you *like* the operating system on the new computer. I gotta tell you, things look the same on a mac as they do on a PC. All that garbage they say about macs being more stable ain't true, unless all do is make photobooks and email your friends about how much you love making photobooks.

As for being trapped in windows... I think you need a vacation or something.

why does linux lag windows in features? (2, Interesting)

rritterson (588983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17343928)

I use Parallels, but only for Linux (MATLAB, which is not OS X/Intel native yet). I've noticed that the features available for virtualizing Windows are far beyond those available for Linux, and that it's only getting worse. According to the article summary, the same is true for VMWare.

For example, I cannot:
-Install Parallels tools for linux, so everytime I suspend my VM, the clock freezes and ends up several days behind schedule when I resume
-Use the nifty new feature that eliminates the Windows desktop and instead just shows the application window on the OS X desktop
-Copy and paste directly between machines (I have to rsync between hosts, though because the VM IP is changing, is only convenient in one direction)
-Easily change resolutions of the Linux VM.

The list goes on.

Now, is this because Windows is just what everyone is running in a VM, so all of the resources are going toward it, or is there some inherent difficulty in replicating these features in Linux. As an aside, couldn't someone in the OSS community (I am not talented enough, sorry) program Linux-based additions to faciliate some of those features, above (like the clock sync)?

Re:why does linux lag windows in features? (5, Informative)

che (1178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17343964)

Actually, VMware Fusion ships with VMware Tools for Linux, Solaris, NetWare, and Windows.

You can copy and paste and drag and drop to and from Linux, Solaris, and Windows, and easily change the resolution of the Linux VM.

Re:why does linux lag windows in features? (2, Insightful)

MarcQuadra (129430) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344054)

I'd venture to say that it's because there are so many options when you're running on linux. How many different versions of X, how many different window managers, and how many libraries for drawing to the screen (Xlib, GTK+1, GTK+2, Qt, XVideo, etc.) would they have to write hooks for?

I'm a linux guy myself, and I love the choices I get (just switched window managers recently, in fact), but that's why you won't get those kind of features when you're running it in a VM session.

Re:why does linux lag windows in features? (2, Informative)

lachlan76 (770870) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344292)

Are you talking about having windows on the main desktop? The window manager would go on the host in this case, and you can just use the normal X11 server to do this. Just set up an SSH tunnel to the VM, or run it through the VM's network adaptor.

Re:why does linux lag windows in features? (1)

aaronl (43811) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344548)

VMware doesn't have a problem with doing these things, and it's largely because it isn't nearly as complicated as you believe. There is no need to write hooks for any of the X toolkits. You write a video driver for x.org and then you are done. If the idea of updating it for new versions is annoying, then provide specs for the virtualized video API that Parallels offers, and contribute it to x.org. Either way, it isn't a big deal.

Re:why does linux lag windows in features? (1)

gordyf (23004) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344868)

I don't think it's this simple for some of the things that Parallels has been doing in its recent betas. They have provided a mode that hides all of Windows except for the Windows apps you're using, and lists those apps in the Dock and in the alt-tab list. The effect is that the virtualized Windows machine disappears, and you're left with Windows apps running alongside Mac apps. It's very slick.

Re:why does linux lag windows in features? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344146)

Is Linux really falling behind Windows in terms of VMWare support? The blurb only mentioned drag and drop. The things you mentioned:

IME changing resolutions on Linux is likely to crash or be unavailable even if you're NOT in a VM. It requires the RandR extention which is relatively recent and not widely well supported. Still I'm disappointed if the VMWare X driver doesn't do it.

Copy and paste between a Linux host and a Windows guest works for me. This of course with all the usual caveats for copy and paste on Linux - there's a mish-mash of ways to do it so many apps can't copy and paste to each other. Best bet is to copy from app A into an xterm then into app B. (And no I'm not saying having to do that is OK).

Linux doesn't have any widely accepted mechanism for drag and drop, so again the likely reason it doesn't work under virtualization is because it seldom works anyways.

Re:why does linux lag windows in features? (2, Informative)

jrockway (229604) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344284)

Parallels is pretty new to the market, so I doubt anyone is using it to run linux. VMWare doesn't have the clock skew problem. (And in fact, it makes a great server environment.)

> -Use the nifty new feature that eliminates the Windows desktop and instead just shows the application window on the OS X desktop

This is really a nasty hack-on-a-hack for Windows. With Linux + OS X, just fire up Apple's X server and tell your Linux image that the X server is at "yourmac:0", and then start up your X session. The windows will all appear on your OS X desktop. This is how X has worked since the 80s. :)

Re:why does linux lag windows in features? (1)

jarich (733129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345990)

Parallels is pretty new to the market, so I doubt anyone is using it to run linux.

You serious? I've been running it for at least six months. Linux runs great... I turned a dual Opteron desktop into a server and moved my work to Parallels on my MBP because it was close enough to the performance. And a lot more portable. :)

I know half a dozen people using Linux as well... don't get me wrong... I'm glad to see VMWare finally making it to Intel Macs, but I doubt they'd be here now if Parallels wasn't driving them.

Re:why does linux lag windows in features? (2, Informative)

caseih (160668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344728)

If you're trying to run a small set of applications in Linux, why are you running a desktop environment and doing things the MS Windows way? Don't boot linux up to graphical mode. Just leave it in text mode. Run parallels minimized to the dock. Then a quick script can ssh into the linux machine, run the program, and dump the display out to Apple's wonderful, integrated X11 server, giving you the integration feature you want (clipboard and everything). While there's not yet a shared folder thing for Linux, you can turn on Windows sharing in OS X's System Preference and just have your startup scripts in Linux smbmount the share so you can can transparently access data across the Mac/Linux divide.

Whether you're using OS X and Parallels or VMWare, this is the best solution for almost all situations. That is why no one has great VMWare or Parallels tools for Linux. They simply aren't needed, since you don't need a dedicated window to view the VM desktop. Let's use the God-given features of X11 to our benefit!

Re:why does linux lag windows in features? (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345252)

I don't understand the complaint about eliminating the desktop and changing the display resolution. On GNU/Linux you have X11... there is no need to emulate a physical display attached to the machine in the first place!

Re:why does linux lag windows in features? (1)

wrf3 (314267) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345508)

Parent is not flamebait. The title is misleading. Parent is not a comparison of features of native Linux vs. Windows, it is a comparison of Linux under Parallels vs. Windows under Parallels.
I have the same issues running Fedora Core 5 under Parallels (couldn't get FC6 to work, despite how-to notes on the net). No copy & paste, no sharing of folders (except via network), no resizing of the VM window, etc. (Note: I just installed the latest Parallels beta and haven't run Linux yet...)

answer: Parallels' marketshare grab (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345548)

Now, is this because Windows is just what everyone is running in a VM, so all of the resources are going toward it, or is there some inherent difficulty in replicating these features in Linux.

This is a more than fair question, because Parallels users have been complaining [parallels.com] , as a google search shows. Linux is open source down to its skivvies, and it should follow that it should be easier to understand/tie into/work with the kernel, develop kernel modules if necessary, etc.

Yet a closed OS like Windows has numerous advanced integration features available for it that are sorely lacking in Linux. What gives? I understand development getting priority on Windows since the market share is bigger, but...I didn't expect it to be so lopsided, or perhaps some sort of community effort (though it bugs me when the community is forced to "do" a company's "job" for them.)

The thread I cited above mentions one good point: Parallels has been rushing to get marketshare precisely because VMware was highly likely to jump into the pool. They're been shipping for a while now, are showing great progress and promise. The author points out that Microsoft has decided not to play, leaving VMware as the 500lb gorilla.

Hopefully once Parallels is comfy in their market share, we'll see more support for Linux. Or, perhaps VMware will take advantage of Parallels' deficiencies and provide good Linux support. Either way- competition will hopefully fix this problem!

Re:why does linux lag windows in features? (1)

nystagman (603173) | more than 7 years ago | (#17346102)

I use Parallels, but only for Linux (MATLAB, which is not OS X/Intel native yet)

I'm currently using the beta of MATLAB for Intel Macs. It is available to anyone whose subscription is current.

It's fast enough if you are not doing graphics-intensive work. OpenGL is not working particularly well yet.

It's compatible with the other VMWare products! (5, Interesting)

MarcQuadra (129430) | more than 7 years ago | (#17343982)

What I really wanted was compatibility with VMWare's other apps, and they delivered. I can justify a Mac at my desk if I can author sessions that eventually live up on our server farm.

Interoperability is HUGE when it comes to virtualization. There's a lot of value to being able to 'build' a server in my bedroom and upload it to bigger metal when I get to work. Parallels didn't have that, VMWare does. I'm going with VMWare.

Re:It's compatible with the other VMWare products! (2, Insightful)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344068)

This is exactly why I think the "mindshare" comment is off-base, a completely misused cliche if there ever was one. VMWare is a respectable product for other platforms that's been around for quite a while, not exactly IBM but still a very fancy tool in the general virtualisation market. This is more like a big fancy MMORPG that was formerly PC-only migrating to the Apple Macintosh platform. The Mac users are happy about the game but overjoyed about being able to play it with a much larger market, the PC users, as well.

I'm looking forward to lower-level video hardware access myself. Windows crashing back to a MacOS X desktop when it blue-screens rather than restarting my entire PC is a personal wet dream of mine.

Re:It's compatible with the other VMWare products! (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344078)

The only thing missing as far as integration with other VMware products is the ability to use Fusion to talk to VMware Server. That would have made my day. As it is I'm either stuck RDPing into a Windows machine or using X over ssh from a Linux machine when dealing with misbehaving VM's.

Don't ask, don't tell. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17343992)

"You can also run multiple Fusion environments at once or assign multiple processors to your virtual machine(s), if you're into that sort of thing.'"

Yes I am. Don't tell anyone.

If I were the bug from Okami... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17344000)

...I would go live in J.K. Rowling's cleavage.

Re:If I were the bug from Okami... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17345496)

She's kind of old... but I'd probably shag her for the novelty of it!

Vista eula (-1, Flamebait)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344064)

Its too bad vista bans running windows on a virtual machine. I imagine this solution will be outdated quick as soon as directx10 games become standard.

Re:Vista eula (2, Informative)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344290)

Where the hell did this idea start? Who is it that can't read? HOME versions of Vista have an EULA that prohibits running them in Virtualization, Business and Ultimate however do not. Microsoft has taken the position that home users are not all that interested in advanced features while Enthusiasts and Corporations are.

Besides, 3d acceleration is not included in Fusion, though that might change, and is only experimental in their more mature Workstation product.

Re:Vista eula (1)

aaronl (43811) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344522)

Yes, *HOME* versions of Vista have an even more restrictive EULA than XP Home. Now you have to spend $400 to run Vista in VMware or Parallels, rather than $200. MS took the position that they can make virtualization less attractive by arbitrarily making it more expensive. With that change, now you can buy a computer with a copy of Vista Home for less than a copy of Vista Ultimate to use in Parallels.

How can you dilute yourself by pretending there is some difference between the OS in Home versus Ultimate that makes one more suited for virtualization? They are the *same* kernel, with the *same* drivers. It's all about screwing you for more money by making the EULA worse.

Re:Vista eula (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345500)

Not only that, but we're talking about running Vista on a Mac. The Vista Home license only forbids using the SAME license for both host and guest OS. But if you're on a Mac, guess what... you're not using it for the host OS.

Re:Vista eula (4, Informative)

Kymermosst (33885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344322)

Its too bad vista bans running windows on a virtual machine. I imagine this solution will be outdated quick as soon as directx10 games become standard.

No. What you mention only applies to the Vista Home edition license. The Vista Ultimate version specifically gives permission to use it in a virtual machine. Both of these are "Vista".

I don't like Microsoft either, but at least I try to badmouth them accurately.

Re:Vista eula (2, Insightful)

aaronl (43811) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344512)

And we all want to rush out and drop $400 on a copy of Vista Ultimate, rather than $200 for Home. They're the same program. MS went out of their way to make Windows more expensive for people that want to emulate. There is *NO* reason for the anti-virtualization terms in those EULAs other than making it more expensive to emulate rather than run native.

I didn't need "permission" to run XP Home in a VM, but because of that license change, now I do with Vista.

Re:Vista eula (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344642)

Then be accurate and mention that Ultimate is $400 and that Home is what will be on store shelves.

Re:Vista eula (1)

EXMSFT (935404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345456)

Oh, don't worry - Ultimate will be on store shelves too. Just as XP Pro was.

Re:Vista eula (4, Insightful)

mmeister (862972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344664)

A more accurate description is that Microsoft charges you a premium for running Vista on a Virtual Machine.

Ironically, one great use for virtual machines (in the software development world) is to test with different configurations, which you'll be able to do with all versions except HOME. You'll have to run that on a separate PC.

In general, MS is full of crap with their licensing approach here. I need neither the features or functionality of Business or Ultimate, other than I want to run it on a VM on my Mac (vs. a Bootcamp approach). It won't cause me to pay more for a product I don't need or want, instead, I'll stick with XP until they get their head out of their ass or I can kiss that crappy Window OS off once and for all (given MS recent missteps, that could been sooner than expected).

Re:Vista eula (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17345460)

I question if that restriction is enforcable. If I buy a license for Vista Home then I will run that license on whatever hardware (real or virtual) that I choose. If VMWare provides a virtual computer that Vista Home cannot differentiate from a real computer then I am not going to let that idiotic clause in the EULA stop me.

Any news on licensing changes? (1)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344100)

vmware is one of the few companies where a bought and paid for vmware workstation license is strictly platform related, if you buy a linux license you can't use it on windows and vice-versa (in this case on mac as well). I would like to be able to run vmware workstation regardless of what base OS I am using...

Re:Any news on licensing changes? (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344982)

Just use the free server local host.

Re:Any news on licensing changes? (1)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345348)

that's what I'm doing at the moment (I have a license for linux, but had to switch to windows as the host OS) but I do miss workstation, which I think is better than server.

Re:Any news on licensing changes? (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345746)

Big time - the ability to have multiple snapshots alone makes Workstation worth the money over Server if you're a developer, but Server is awfully nice in that you don't have to run the VMs on your local box.

Whack a mole for Wii (-1, Offtopic)

nuggz (69912) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344108)

I've got it, one of the many minigames in Monkeyball.

I think Wii sports being bundled really wins people over to the Wii.
It isn't that the games are great, it's the pick up and play fun.

Re:Whack a mole for Wii (1)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344218)

You must be new here! You've posted to the wrong article.

Windows Schmindows (1)

Divebus (860563) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344144)

Very nice entry to this capability. MHO: I don't want to buy, run or support Windows, I just want to run Windows apps under OS X. Crossover (Wine port) is where more effort should go.

CrossOver is Intel Only (1)

CheeseburgerBrown (553703) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344874)

While it's definitely a cool application, it is worth noting that those of us with PowerPC-based Macintoshes are left in the lurch on this one (some reasons for which should be obvious).

Re:CrossOver is Intel Only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17345692)

While it's definitely a cool application, it is worth noting that those of us with PowerPC-based Macintoshes need to get off our cheap asses, stop complaining, and fucking upgrade our Macs. TWAT.

first comparisions (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17344192)

I have both the latest Parallels Beta and the fusion beta running with win2k.

- Fusion seems a bit slower/sluggish from a user perspective, but that might be due to driver issues.

- Fusion does not handle dual headed machines in full screen mode as well as Parallels, as the fusion full screen mode is designed for single headed situations (main menu handling)

- Fusion handles Networking much better than Parallels. E.g. my cisco VPN works out of the box in shared mode. I never got it to work with Parallels, athough they claim to support it.

- General Driver support is better with Parallels, except networking

- Additional tool support like drive compression is better with Parallels

- Parallels support Boot Camp partitions.

I probably will go with Fusion unless Parallels gets their networking situation straight, but tiime will tell :-)

Re:first comparisions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17345094)

For what it's worth, my Cisco VPN works perfectly fine with Parallels out of the box.

Re:first comparisions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17345134)

might be . I know someone with a macMini where it works too with some manual network interace disabling/enabling. But my iMac refused steadfast.

Re:first comparisions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17345592)

You list out why Parallel is better in almost all areas (except networking) and then say you'll go with fusion. what up with that? seems that it should be the other way around.

Re:first comparisions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17345620)

The slowness may be because the beta version has all debugging enabled. The release version will not have this.

I have been a vmware beta tester since 2000 and usually there is a big difference in speed between the test and release versions.

vmware vs parallels (1)

arazor (55656) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344274)

Still can not use basic things such as a usb modem in parallels while even the pre-release from vmware could use them with no problems. For my use right now vmware has the lead.

Re:vmware vs parallels (1)

EXMSFT (935404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345464)

What's a modem?

parallels and vmware (2, Interesting)

christurkel (520220) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344348)

Parallells is slick andif you run one of their supported OSes, it is nice. However, VMWare supports a much wider range of OSes. No one has built, let's say, SkyOS images for Parallels but they have for VMWare.

I want a gaming designed VM (4, Interesting)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344436)

When is somebody going to do this? Hell, when is somebody going to fork Dosbox and turn it into something usable? Dosbox has an immense amount of cool technical work in it, but the UI absolutely unusable. Why can't we have an actual Virtual Machine environment that can boot DOS from a disk image, and provide excellent sound support, and CGA/EGA/VGA/VESA graphics support? And *gasp* how about joystick support on par with most NES, SNES, etc emulators? Furthermore, how about some sensible CPU speed scaling? Like every other emulator for other platforms has available.

Re:I want a gaming designed VM (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345188)

I guess around the time someone cares. You seem to care, why don't you do it? Or pay someone to do it? I use dosbox to run Syndicate [insomnia.org] to test if I'm doing the right thing in FreeSynd [sf.net] and it works good enough for me. It works good enough for a lot of people, that's why it doesn't get much improvement.

Re:I want a gaming designed VM (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345942)

VMWare is supposed to be working on 3D drivers for use inside the VM. I hope they get it working as it'd be nice to be able to run games in VMWare w/ Win2k instead of having to dual-boot. It probably doesn't matter to me though as I'm refussing to ever use Vista and I imagine most new PC games will soon be for Vista.

VMWare to the rescue. (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344532)

I dont know about Parallels as I have never used it but VMWare is leaps and bounds ahead of other products out there. (Virtual PC)

Doing development and prototyping systems, I couldnt live without VMWare.. and now I can coppy the VM's to my Mac if I need to.

Er, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17344714)

I dont know about Parallels as I have never used it but VMWare is leaps and bounds ahead of other products out there.

So, you don't know about the current market leader, yet you forcefully claim that VMWare is "leaps and bounds ahead of other products out there".

Interesting use of logic.

Re:Er, what? (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345128)

Right, I do.

You aperntly somehow know all about me, you chalange this?

Only reason I havnt used it is its a newer nich product for only macs, and I still own PPC hardware.

And if you want to REALLY get down to it. Wine is faster than both.

Re:VMWare to the rescue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17344944)

Virtual PC doesn't even run on an Intel Mac so the comparison is irrelevant. You need to try Parallels before comparing anything with VMWare.

You Are Running VMware Fusion with DEBUG option. (4, Funny)

horati0 (249977) | more than 7 years ago | (#17344720)

As soon as I start a virtual machine, I get:

Please be advised that the additional logging and error checking enabled by this option result [sic] in substantially slower execution. This option cannot be disabled on this build of VMware Fusion.
Awesome. I think more companies should pop up windows that tell the user their software will run slower and there is nothing they can do about it. Maybe throw in a clip of Nelson haw-hawing?

I know, I know, public beta. It's a joke, son.

Re:You Are Running VMware Fusion with DEBUG option (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345778)

As a developer, I get perverse joy in having the user tied up and put in a corner in such a manner. :-)

"You *WILL* run this software in the manner which *I* determine, you got me boy?!?"

gn4a (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17345138)

Sha'rE. *BSD is [goat.cx]

Snapshots? (1)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345268)

Can anyone who has used Fusion tell me whether it supports Workstation's snapshot functionality? That is, IMHO, the greatest feature *ever*; an OS-level undo. I just know I'm going to need this trying to install Oracle 10g on a ZFS partition on Solaris 10.

Re:Snapshots? (3, Interesting)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345772)

Right now, no it doesn't. They also won't comment on upcoming features so you don't know if it will or not. If it doesn't though I believe that it will be the only one of VMware's virtualization software that doesn't so that's pretty unlikely.

It seems to pretty much be VMware Workstation on OS X so I would expect it to have pretty much the same features eventually.

Re:Snapshots? (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345804)

Doesn't seem the beta does, dunno about the finished product. I agree that snapshots rule though.

fuc4? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17345288)

Actually... (1)

jours (663228) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345854)

Actually, this is the first public release of the beta but various earlier releases have been out for a couple months now. I've been working with it with both Ubuntu and Gentoo guests and have been pretty impressed (though I can't say I've ever opened a new release of a VMWare product and not been impressed). These guys do good work. It's surprisingly Mac-like for a company that hasn't had previous releases on the Mac platform. In daily use so far I haven't had any real problems to speak of and won't be surprised to see it released fairly soon. It's missing a few of the features I rely on in the Workstation product but it's still an easy choice over Parallels, Q, or anything else I've seen.

OS X in VMWare. (2, Interesting)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17345958)

I like being able to run OS X in VMWare. Thank gawd for hacked copies since Apple refuses to sell OS X for this use and you have to jump through hoops to make it work. Makes it handy to test out programs and web sites you're developing.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?