PDA

View Full Version : VMWare Public Beta, Parallels Beta 2




MacRumors
Dec 22, 2006, 01:09 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

VMWare has posted (http://www.vmware.com/products/beta/fusion/) a public beta (Build 36932) of their Intel Mac virtualization software called Fusion.

The new VMware desktop product for the Mac, codenamed Fusion, allows Intel-based Macs to run x86 operating systems, such as Windows, Linux, NetWare and Solaris, in virtual machines at the same time as Mac OS X. It is built on VMware's rock-solid and advanced desktop virtualization platform that is used by over four million users today.

The download page (http://www.vmware.com/products/beta/fusion/) requires some registration (http://register.vmware.com/content/beta/fusion/registration.html) to generate a Serial Number for the beta software. FAQ (http://www.vmware.com/products/beta/fusion/faqs.html) and release notes (http://www.vmware.com/products/beta/fusion/releasenotes_fusion.html) are available online. Key features described include:

- Assign multiple CPUs to your virtual machine
- Intel Mac support (all models)
- USB 2.0 support
- Drag/Drop file support.

Meanwhile, Parallels has been providing (http://www.parallels.com/en/products/desktop/) frequent updates for their virtualization solution for the Mac and have just released Beta 2 (http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/beta_testing/), which brings a number of improvements including USB 2.0 support, Boot Camp partition support, and Drap/Drop support.



iW00t
Dec 22, 2006, 01:14 AM
It is now time for Parallels to die :)

balamw
Dec 22, 2006, 01:15 AM
Can Fusion coexist with Parallels? Or do I need to remove Parallels to install Fusion Beta?

B

DMann
Dec 22, 2006, 01:16 AM
It is now time for Parallels to die :)

Let virtualization roll.........

D34thPwny
Dec 22, 2006, 01:17 AM
I wonder, will there come a day soon when I don't need to keep my PC around and up to date for gaming? 'Cause that would be really, really cool...
Admittedly I haven't looked that hard into it, but is this within the realm of possibility with these programs and the intel mac hardware?

spookje
Dec 22, 2006, 01:29 AM
Great! New beta of VMWare Fusion, somehow this application just works finer then Parallels Desktop. Also the support of Windows VMWAre Image is a killer!

iJawn108
Dec 22, 2006, 01:30 AM
I signed up to be a beta tester months ago but no beans till now. I have parallels but im going to check this out.

syklee26
Dec 22, 2006, 01:32 AM
this new beta for Parallels is horrible so far....it slows down my mac badly. and it does not automatically adjust the resolution either. I don't know what's going on here. maybe i did something wrong.

did anyone notice this? now I also have to lock inside the console to move the mouse whereas I didn't have to do that in Beta 1.

kroko
Dec 22, 2006, 01:33 AM
I wonder, will there come a day soon when I don't need to keep my PC around and up to date for gaming? 'Cause that would be really, really cool...
Admittedly I haven't looked that hard into it, but is this within the realm of possibility with these programs and the intel mac hardware?

ever heard of codeweavers crossover?
i have nothing but excellent experience with gaming win soft on osx. uses all my macs resources and dont need win to run pc progs.

mkjellman
Dec 22, 2006, 02:15 AM
the new coherence feature in parallels really blows anything VMWare offers right now out of the water. I do agree that Parallels seems to slow down my machine a great deal but until VMWare can offer me Coherence and BootCamp support (so i only have one windows installation) its still parallels for me!

MGLXP
Dec 22, 2006, 02:20 AM
this new beta for Parallels is horrible so far....it slows down my mac badly. and it does not automatically adjust the resolution either. I don't know what's going on here. maybe i did something wrong.

did anyone notice this? now I also have to lock inside the console to move the mouse whereas I didn't have to do that in Beta 1.

When you upgrade from Beta 1, you MUST reinstall Parallels Tools in Windows. This restores that mouse functionality.

MGLXP
Dec 22, 2006, 02:22 AM
Can Fusion coexist with Parallels? Or do I need to remove Parallels to install Fusion Beta?

B

VMWare Fusion can coexist with Parallels, but of course each uses their own format.

D34thPwny
Dec 22, 2006, 02:25 AM
ever heard of codeweavers crossover?
i have nothing but excellent experience with gaming win soft on osx. uses all my macs resources and dont need win to run pc progs.
Just from glancing over their supported apps, all but one or two of my favorite games are listed as not working... Good idea though!

iJawn108
Dec 22, 2006, 02:27 AM
I give them credit it actually took me to the vista install screen(look at my measly specs) as apposed to parallels would just bring my whole system to a hault.

GFLPraxis
Dec 22, 2006, 03:25 AM
Can Fusion boot from Boot Camp? If so, I'll download immediately. If not...my MacBook only has a 60 GB hard drive. I'm not installing Windows TWICE.

EDIT: Just read the Parallels feature list. When the new version is released, I'll buy it.

Marx55
Dec 22, 2006, 03:36 AM
The day in which you install any or all virtualization solutions with A SINGLE WINDOWS installation will be a gigantic leap aheap. I do not want to install the very same Windows for each and every virtualuzation that I want to try or have! Time is limited and disk space is also limited.

aspro
Dec 22, 2006, 03:53 AM
It will be interesting to see how this competition plays out, smaller Parallels with headstart and more interesting features versus the industry behemoth VMWare with its much greater experience and resources.

I'm personally rooting for Parallels ;)

MacsRgr8
Dec 22, 2006, 04:03 AM
Hmm... anyone care to list the pros and cons of both?

I have used Parallels quite a bit, but I wonder why I should try VMWare (apart from the fact that it's fun to do... ;))

Aetles
Dec 22, 2006, 04:41 AM
I'm very excited about this "Drap/Drop support" :)

Hoges
Dec 22, 2006, 04:42 AM
If I read correctly then Parallels now does what Crossover does. That is run a PC app in Mac OS X. Anyone know what the caveats are?

mirus82
Dec 22, 2006, 05:07 AM
If I read correctly then Parallels now does what Crossover does. That is run a PC app in Mac OS X. Anyone know what the caveats are?
No, it's not the same thing. With the Coherence mode you are always running Windows (instead of Creossover that uses Windows-like API, not Windows) but Parallels hides background, start menu, ecc and shows you only the application's window.

aspro
Dec 22, 2006, 05:12 AM
A major difference is that Crossover Office does not require a copy of Windows, whilst Parallels does.

kroko
Dec 22, 2006, 05:44 AM
Just from glancing over their supported apps, all but one or two of my favorite games are listed as not working... Good idea though!

ALL the games im playing through crossover are not in the suported app list. the list contains apps that are tested by codeweavers.
for example- when i launched crossover for the very first time i tried to install counterstrike. cs worked on maxed out quality. perfect!
and you don't deed to install m$win
and the apps are opening just like normal osx apps.
you don't mess up your file system. there is just one folder containing crossover and all the installed apps.
hmm, i cant think fast enough to tell how GREAT crossover is:)
give a try (60 days for free)
and just read the manual carefully

Glenny2lappies
Dec 22, 2006, 05:48 AM
Parallels are going to have to work hard to maintain their market.

Whilst a casual VM user will have a choice between Parallels & VMWare, anyone in the corporate space will find the cross-platform use of VMWare very compelling. I've used VMWare for years on Windows and have lots of different corporate VM images. Moving to the Mac meant using only Parallels so I had to re-create the VMs. But now there's a choice.

Just look at the array of virtual appliances. Wow! I've not seen these before and really appreciate the idea that I could load up a whole range of pre-configured VMs - especially the Linuxes.

I've enjoyed using Parallels and feel a degree of sympathy with them in a kind of David and Goliath way. But struth, the big boy's coming back into the playground and is really going to really fight for the market which VMWare see as theirs.

bigandy
Dec 22, 2006, 05:50 AM
A major difference is that Crossover Office does not require a copy of Windows, whilst Parallels does.

yeah, but crossover + office = not a fully working copy of said microsoft suite.

Parallels and VMWare both offer virtualisation if the processor supports it properly (some of the Core Duo machines don't seem to).

Crossover uses Windows libraries to run the applications in a 'container'.

Glenny2lappies
Dec 22, 2006, 05:52 AM
Parallels' website is basically down. I've tried in vain to download the new update for the last couple of hours.

I'm quite looking forwards to running Internet Exploder in a window in OSX. It'll be great to not have to look at the dumb-assed Telly Tubbies desktop picture. Yeah, I know I could change it, but it's nice to be reminded of why I moved over!

neofaith
Dec 22, 2006, 06:00 AM
As a registered user for both Parallels for Mac and VMWare for Windows,
I think VMware is risking something more important as Vista comes out in the beginning of next year in similar speed as Leopard.
This means they'll have to focus into two different areas when I think they should focus mainly on VMs for Vista

BornAgainMac
Dec 22, 2006, 06:17 AM
The "Virtual PC" name still sticks with me. I have Parallels but often refer to it as Virtual PC. VMWare is another terrible name but probably a more well known product in the business world.

brandon6684
Dec 22, 2006, 06:21 AM
The one that will win me over will be the one that can offer me the most seem less experience while seeing Windows itself the least. Coherence mode is a very nice start, but could go so much farther.

xUKHCx
Dec 22, 2006, 06:31 AM
The one that will win me over will be the one that can offer me the most seem less experience while seeing Windows itself the least. Coherence mode is a very nice start, but could go so much farther.

Coherence mode is a big step towards transparency. Which is believe is one of THE big things.

Being able to boot from the boot camp partition is another major bonus. Saves me about 8Gb of disk space, not that important to me but say you only have the basic macbook that is about 15% of the userable space.

Parallels wins this round.

MacVault
Dec 22, 2006, 06:43 AM
...It is built on VMware's rock-solid and advanced desktop virtualization platform...

Does this mean Fusion is not designed to be used in a server environment? So I can't buy xServes and serve Windows off of them to my corporate network? Does VM Ware plan to bring us a server-grade vmware product for the Mac???

strange days
Dec 22, 2006, 06:57 AM
maybe a little out of the main theme of the thread but I was wondering if there's any app around for OSX ( and XP ) that allows for a COMPLETE backup of the rival OS partition...

...I mean, I'd like to backup ( or move to a different MAC ) a complete NTFS partition with all my installed apps, documents, cache, etc.
When you are under XP only, on a regular PC, a few apps claim they can do that, the result is very often a useless mess; so I guess now that we can use XP under OSX, and the Windows drive is there when you boot under OSX ( NTFS is readable too ! ), I'd love to see an OSX app capable of copying / pasting my NTFS partition with all its data from the HD to another machine ( or external HD for backup purposes ), so that I can BOOTCAMP the new machine under XP right away, or use PARALLELS on it, etc...

THAT would be a major plus for me; maybe this kind of app already exists and I'm just out of the loop; obviously, the very same app under XP to copy / backup the HFS+ partition of OSX would be killer as well. :rolleyes:

brandon6684
Dec 22, 2006, 07:06 AM
Does this mean Fusion is not designed to be used in a server environment? So I can't buy xServes and serve Windows off of them to my corporate network? Does VM Ware plan to bring us a server-grade vmware product for the Mac???

Good point, what we OS X really needs is a a good server virtualization package, though I'm guessing VMware is trying to take out the competition first with head-to-head competition. Of course for a server product, being able to run a second instance of OS X would be a must.

MacVault
Dec 22, 2006, 07:10 AM
Is there any tool available that can take a normal OS installation, whether Windows/Linux/etc, and turn it into an "image" for VMWare or Parallels??? That would be sweet!

brandon6684
Dec 22, 2006, 07:11 AM
Is there any tool available that can take a normal OS installation, whether Windows/Linux/etc, and turn it into an "image" for VMWare or Parallels??? That would be sweet!

If I'm not mistaken, that's what the parallels transporter does.

BeyondCloister
Dec 22, 2006, 07:18 AM
Is there any tool available that can take a normal OS installation, whether Windows/Linux/etc, and turn it into an "image" for VMWare or Parallels??? That would be sweet!

Parallels Transporter does just that.

MacVault
Dec 22, 2006, 07:19 AM
If I'm not mistaken, that's what the parallels transporter does.

Sweet! Parallels is awsome!

WildPalms
Dec 22, 2006, 07:19 AM
So far I've seen Parallels consistently create a better and better product as well as updates within small timeframes. VMWare has historically been much slower. However, having a choice is always a good thing and I'm sure both products will do well.

brandon6684
Dec 22, 2006, 07:22 AM
So far I've seen Parallels consistently create a better and better product as well as updates within small timeframes. VMWare has historically been much slower. However, having a choice is always a good thing and I'm sure both products will do well.

I agree, parallels has done an awesome job so far. If they can get 3D support and refine coherence mode, they've won me, unless of course VMware does the same thing better, but at the current rate that'll be years.

IscariotJ
Dec 22, 2006, 07:23 AM
Does this mean Fusion is not designed to be used in a server environment? So I can't buy xServes and serve Windows off of them to my corporate network? Does VM Ware plan to bring us a server-grade vmware product for the Mac???

Fusion is a desktop product, though I'm guessing that once it's done, a version of Server will be next.

As a v1 product, I think Fusion is great. I know I'm in the minority, but running Windows isn't a priority ( hence Coherency is just a gimmick, though a neat one ). Running Solaris/Ubuntu is, though, and that's where Fusion has the upper hand. VMware's *nix support is superb, whereas Parallels feels like it's an after-thought. I've yet to experience VMware's support, but haven't been overly impressed with that from Parallels.

Will I switch? More than likely, if only for the improved *nix support.

brandon6684
Dec 22, 2006, 07:29 AM
Fusion is a desktop product, though I'm guessing that once it's done, a version of Server will be next.

As a v1 product, I think Fusion is great. I know I'm in the minority, but running Windows isn't a priority ( hence Coherency is just a gimmick, though a neat one ). Running Solaris/Ubuntu is, though, and that's where Fusion has the upper hand. VMware's *nix support is superb, whereas Parallels feels like it's an after-thought. I've yet to experience VMware's support, but haven't been overly impressed with that from Parallels.

Will I switch? More than likely, if only for the improved *nix support.

Good point, for a full virtual machine and Linux, VMware may well win out, but if I just need to run a Windows app or two, Parallels in coherence mode is the way to go. With just a bit more work(which I'll bet the Parallels team is doing now), coherence mode could practically provide the level of backwards compatibility Classic did for OS9, and be the ultimate migration tool.

frojas
Dec 22, 2006, 07:30 AM
Is there any tool available that can take a normal OS installation, whether Windows/Linux/etc, and turn it into an "image" for VMWare or Parallels??? That would be sweet!

Try VMware Converter: http://www.vmware.com/products/beta/converter/

mark88
Dec 22, 2006, 07:56 AM
So who copied whos logo? they are both more or less the same.

MacRumorUser
Dec 22, 2006, 08:12 AM
VMWare is REALLY BETA.

So much so that's it's a considerable pain to even install the bleeding thing, with problems recognising drives, keyboards to even start the installation.

After an hour of fiddling I've given up.

I'll stick with parallels for now (at least it works ;) )

Glenny2lappies
Dec 22, 2006, 08:16 AM
So who copied whos logo? they are both more or less the same.

VMWare have been around for years. I remember running Windows 3.0 on Unix.

kainjow
Dec 22, 2006, 08:19 AM
So who copied whos logo? they are both more or less the same.

VMware's icon was originally orange like Parallels. I'm glad they changed the colors.

sfwalter
Dec 22, 2006, 08:26 AM
Has anyone actually got the Fusion beta to run? After install I double clicked at the app shows for a quick second and then quits. I looked at the console log file at it shows:

Cannot load message dictionary "/Library/Application Support/VMware Fusion/messages/en/

I looked at that location and sure enough theres no messages directory. Ooops, did they forget to include some files in the installer?

Digitalclips
Dec 22, 2006, 08:33 AM
Isn't it just great that we have all these choices to discuss the various merits of? :)

brandon6684
Dec 22, 2006, 08:42 AM
Has anyone actually got the Fusion beta to run? After install I double clicked at the app shows for a quick second and then quits. I looked at the console log file at it shows:

Cannot load message dictionary "/Library/Application Support/VMware Fusion/messages/en/

I looked at that location and sure enough theres no messages directory. Ooops, did they forget to include some files in the installer?

I got it running here, though a bit sluggish. Not quite VirtualPC sluggish, but slower than Parallels on the same machine, or VMware on my slower Windows PC.

TheSpaz
Dec 22, 2006, 08:47 AM
...which brings a number of improvements including USB 2.0 support, Boot Camp partition support, and Drap/Drop support.

Oh sweet! I've been waiting for Drap/Drop support..... finally!

On a more serious note, I don't have a copy of Windows to install... I've never owned a copy of Windows in my entire life and I can't imagine why I'd start giving my money to Microsoft now.

user13
Dec 22, 2006, 08:51 AM
As for me i prefer using Parallels - with its Coherence mode (awesome it is!!!) and with Boot Camp support it is more preferable for me. Maybe new beta still lacks some features, such as 3d support for example, but i hope Parallels will do something to improve the situation

MacRumorUser
Dec 22, 2006, 08:51 AM
It is now time for Parallels to die :)

With the quality of the VMware beta, why would you say that.

Parallels offers a great product and is constantly updated / supported and bettered at every stage. Somthing a lot of bigger software companies could learn from.

Did parallels upset you in a parallel life ?

geerlingguy
Dec 22, 2006, 08:53 AM
I'm very excited about this "Drap/Drop support" :)

Me too. What exactly does this mean for us users? Does it integrate with some new PowerBook G5 feature that we'll hear about along with the iPhone at MacWorld?

user13
Dec 22, 2006, 09:06 AM
With the quality of the VMware beta, why would you say that.

Parallels offers a great product and is constantly updated / supported and bettered at every stage. Somthing a lot of bigger software companies could learn from.

Did parallels upset you in a parallel life ?

I agree. Parallels do upgrade their product, they work over the drawbacks! Now they made usb 2.0 available at last and boot camp support.
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2006/12/01.12.shtml (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2006/12/01.12.shtml)
http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/08/08/parallels.desktop.for.mac

http://flickr.com/photos/gruber/311690002/

:)Don't want to be unfounded - interesting articles

reflex
Dec 22, 2006, 09:11 AM
So far this beta of VMWare is working very well here. The first beta was bad, but this one works about as well as the Windows version for me (so far).

bigandy
Dec 22, 2006, 09:17 AM
This means they'll have to focus into two different areas when I think they should focus mainly on VMs for Vista

you do realise VMWare makes other non Windows based platforms, like Linux?

they're not entirely focused on Windows as it is. i don't think they ever have been...

decksnap
Dec 22, 2006, 09:20 AM
Can somebody lay out the basics for a 'windows on Mac' newbie's mom? :D

My parents will be buying an iMac imminently, and they will need to run likely one single Windows geneology program. With all the 'stuff still in beta' and various options, what's the best and simplest way to set her up?

Clive At Five
Dec 22, 2006, 09:23 AM
...which brings a number of improvements including USB 2.0 support, Boot Camp partition support, and Drap/Drop support.

Woohoo! Finally! I've been begging them to add "Drap and Drop" support for ages! I'm all aboard now... pre-ordering on Amazon... now.

;)

-Clive

user13
Dec 22, 2006, 09:25 AM
Woohoo! Finally! I've been begging them to add "Drap and Drop" support for ages! I'm all aboard now... pre-ordering on Amazon... now.

;)

-Clive

Drag and drop is awesome!!
:)
I agree.

spookje
Dec 22, 2006, 09:38 AM
Damn, this beta for Parallels really sucks. The bootcamp feature really sucks, totally ****ed up my bootcamp partition. Piece of crap.

akac
Dec 22, 2006, 09:41 AM
Parallels are going to have to work hard to maintain their market.

Whilst a casual VM user will have a choice between Parallels & VMWare, anyone in the corporate space will find the cross-platform use of VMWare very compelling. I've used VMWare for years on Windows and have lots of different corporate VM images. Moving to the Mac meant using only Parallels so I had to re-create the VMs. But now there's a choice.

Just look at the array of virtual appliances. Wow! I've not seen these before and really appreciate the idea that I could load up a whole range of pre-configured VMs - especially the Linuxes.

I've enjoyed using Parallels and feel a degree of sympathy with them in a kind of David and Goliath way. But struth, the big boy's coming back into the playground and is really going to really fight for the market which VMWare see as theirs.

Depends on how much VMWare costs. Traditionally its about $200 or so. And right now Parallels 3092 is far more advanced than VMWare in a lot of areas, though it is quite buggy.

BeyondCloister
Dec 22, 2006, 09:44 AM
Damn, this beta for Parallels really sucks. The bootcamp feature really sucks, totally ****ed up my bootcamp partition. Piece of crap.

Did you follow their instructions regarding any previous installations?

If you take a look over at the Parallels forum you should be able to get help about it as numerous people have got it working.

manu chao
Dec 22, 2006, 10:13 AM
I wonder, will there come a day soon when I don't need to keep my PC around and up to date for gaming?

If you need to connect to the internet at least occasionally (to install updates to games or drivers, the OS to keep your gaming platform 'competive') then you will have to keep updating even your virtual PC with all security patches. If you think you can do without the internet (and download the occasional piece of software on the Mac and then copy it from there to your virtual PC) then you do not have to keep updating.

ChrisA
Dec 22, 2006, 10:32 AM
Parallels are going to have to work hard to maintain their market.

Whilst a casual VM user will have a choice between Parallels & VMWare, anyone in the corporate space will find the cross-platform use of VMWare very compelling.

Even home users might have more then one computer. If they do they might like "VMware Server" then they can run a VM image on a physical machine that is not the one they are sitting in front of. Basically outsourcing the CPU. Also if they have both Windows PC and a Mac, With VMware they can share the VMs across both computers. It will take quite some some before end users become educated and comfortable with the idea that a VM does not have to be tied to specific hardware or host OS. Some will figure this out, ord will spread.

Now that VMware is available I'm thinking I want a Mac Pro rather then a 24" iMac

If you want to see something very interresting the folks involved with QEMU are looking to run Mac OS X inside a VM. I already run VMware on this Linux system, would be great to open a Mac OS VM. QEMU is Open Source so it can do anything we want it to.

ChrisA
Dec 22, 2006, 10:36 AM
Depends on how much VMWare costs. Traditionally its about $200 or so. And right now Parallels 3092 is far more advanced than VMWare in a lot of areas, though it is quite buggy.

VMware is sold at a range of price points. VM "Player" is free. Also VM Server is free. "Workstation" about $200 and the others are much more expensive going up to four digits.

The free Server package is comparable to the Mac Fusion beta except server has some extra features for running VM on remote machines.

My guess? VMware will match Parallel's price

ChrisA
Dec 22, 2006, 10:46 AM
As a registered user for both Parallels for Mac and VMWare for Windows,
I think VMware is risking something more important as Vista comes out in the beginning of next year in similar speed as Leopard.
This means they'll have to focus into two different areas when I think they should focus mainly on VMs for Vista

I think VMware is thinking about more. Like Linux and Solaris and VMware makes most of their money in the big data enters and server rooms. They are giving away their "VM Server" and "payer" products for FREE. That's basically just to hook new users and gain market share for their expensive enterprise products

There are plenty of Open Source and Free VM-like products and now both Linux and Solaris have VM-like features (xen and zones) built-in so there is not much money to be made at the low end. So VMware must have decided to give up on asking for money. With VM features moving into the OS they have to look to providing a way to manage the use of VMs and make it easy for admins and of course they sell support and consulting

ChickenSwartz
Dec 22, 2006, 10:48 AM
ever heard of codeweavers crossover?
i have nothing but excellent experience with gaming win soft on osx. uses all my macs resources and dont need win to run pc progs.

CrossOver is a great idea, but at this point it is really hit or miss if a given program will work correctly. They haven't been making huge strides toward fixing many of these problems so it seems to me (I am not a programmer) that they are hitting some brick walls. Maybe they are saving it all for the final retail version.

Snowy_River
Dec 22, 2006, 11:11 AM
Does anyone have any screenshots of Coherence? This sounds very interesting, but I'd like to see how it looks, and the Parallels website doesn't offer any.

One big question I'd have about it is whether or not you can open and save files from the Mac disk. For example, if you receive a Word file in your email, and you want to open it in Office, which you have running under Parallels, do you have to transfer it to the PC disk first, or what?

Personally, I'm looking for transparency all the way. That's why, right now, I only have Crossover installed. (However, I'll freely admit that I almost never use any Windows apps., so this isn't a huge issue to me.)

adiosk8
Dec 22, 2006, 11:12 AM
This new paralells build messed up my bootcamp...I went back into bootcamp and my keyboard / mouse doesnt work and it sits there and tries to search for drivers...

Scottyk9
Dec 22, 2006, 11:17 AM
Does anyone have any screenshots of Coherence? This sounds very interesting, but I'd like to see how it looks, and the Parallels website doesn't offer any.

One big question I'd have about it is whether or not you can open and save files from the Mac disk. For example, if you receive a Word file in your email, and you want to open it in Office, which you have running under Parallels, do you have to transfer it to the PC disk first, or what?

Personally, I'm looking for transparency all the way. That's why, right now, I only have Crossover installed. (However, I'll freely admit that I almost never use any Windows apps., so this isn't a huge issue to me.)

several ways to do this
- shared folder (pretty fast in the latest betas)
- clipboard
- the recent beta's have drag and drop, you can just move files between the virtual machine and OS X

Kelmon
Dec 22, 2006, 11:34 AM
I currently have my investment in Parallels but I'm not touching the current Beta until it becomes a full release. As much as I sometimes enjoy running beta software so that I can "see the future", this isn't the type of application that I'd be comfortable running in such a state, particularly given the number of reports of problems.

Despite having received an invitation to test the beta of VMware Fusion, for the moment I think I'll pass until it becomes a more mature product.

Snowy_River
Dec 22, 2006, 12:00 PM
several ways to do this
- shared folder (pretty fast in the latest betas)
- clipboard
- the recent beta's have drag and drop, you can just move files between the virtual machine and OS X

For the sake of transparency, I think that I'd have to go with the shared folder. If you're copying back and forth, whether with the clipboard or through drag-and-drop, you're creating multiple instances of the same file, taking up twice the disk space, etc.

digitalbiker
Dec 22, 2006, 12:20 PM
I know this is slightly off-topic but I was wondering if anyone on this board has had experience running RedHat Linux in either VMWare or Parallels on a MacPro with OS X.

I have a key scientific application that I need to run in Red Hat Enterprise WS 4. It utilizes some 3D OpenGL code for 3D data display and rotations.

I have a long love affair with macs and I would love to finally abandon this Dell Linux machine for a new mac pro.

I am chomping at the bit for some information on just how well Red Hat Linux will run in VMWare or Parallels on OS X, so that I can take the plunge and buy a new MacPro.

What are the drawbacks? Are Red Hat Drivers for MacPro hardware a major issue?

eyup
Dec 22, 2006, 01:59 PM
Anybody got any ideas why I'm getting "The activation key cannot be used with the current version of parallels Desktop!" when I enter my legit key from the previous version?

psychofreak
Dec 22, 2006, 02:06 PM
Anybody got any ideas why I'm getting "The activation key cannot be used with the current version of parallels Desktop!" when I enter my legit key from the previous version?

Try something illegal, you paid for the software...

Maxwell Smart
Dec 22, 2006, 02:36 PM
This is great, though i currently use Parallels, competition can do nothing but good. Plus now I can see if my old VMware images work! :)

charlestrippy
Dec 22, 2006, 02:55 PM
how do I make an application from within parallels/windows (.exe) and put it in my OS X dock? what's the processes for letting me do that - so I can just click the .exe on the dock and it'll bring it up within parallels...is that possible?

MrCrowbar
Dec 22, 2006, 03:00 PM
Anybody got any ideas why I'm getting "The activation key cannot be used with the current version of parallels Desktop!" when I enter my legit key from the previous version?

Get a trial key for 2 weeks. It will only give you one key per e-mail, so use
http://www.10minutemail.com/10MinuteMail/email.html
to create an email address, open a new browser window, sign up for the trial of parallels, wait for 10minutemail to get the activation mail, done.

I'm developing a script to do that so I don't have to waste 2 minutes of my life every 2 weeks. :p

IscariotJ
Dec 22, 2006, 03:30 PM
With the quality of the VMware beta, why would you say that.

Parallels offers a great product and is constantly updated / supported and bettered at every stage. Somthing a lot of bigger software companies could learn from.

Did parallels upset you in a parallel life ?

Parallels offers a good product, if you stick the GA versions. With betas, you install at your own risk. The VMware beta is no different. Currently, I'm having no issues with Fusion. I've installed Solaris, Kubuntu, and even XP.

I would take issue with constantly supported, though? By the other users of Parallels. Yup. By Parallels? Not judging by the amount of complaints on the forums.

Don't get me wrong, I bought Parallels when it was first announced, but I think that Fusion will be stiff competition for them.

Peel
Dec 22, 2006, 03:44 PM
I know this is slightly off-topic but I was wondering if anyone on this board has had experience running RedHat Linux in either VMWare or Parallels on a MacPro with OS X.

I have a key scientific application that I need to run in Red Hat Enterprise WS 4. It utilizes some 3D OpenGL code for 3D data display and rotations
While it's not Enterprise 4, I've installed Core 6 in Parallels a couple weeks ago and haven't had any problems yet. Granted, I'm not doing any heavy lifting with it, so long-term stability remains to be seen.

MacRumorUser
Dec 22, 2006, 04:41 PM
The VMware beta is no different. Currently, I'm having no issues with Fusion. I've installed Solaris, Kubuntu, and even XP.


Out of interest was it on a macpro, and did it recognise your keyboard.

For me none of the virtual images recognise my apple keybaord or my wireless logitech one, so I can not install anything at all.

synth3tik
Dec 22, 2006, 05:23 PM
I would love to be able to use boot camp partitions with VMWare, maybe that is something that they will throw into the final release. I just hate Parallels just sucks so bad. I have gotten it to work now, but this is after weeks of farting around. I don't think I want to try their beta 2.

D34thPwny
Dec 22, 2006, 05:56 PM
ALL the games im playing through crossover are not in the suported app list. the list contains apps that are tested by codeweavers.
for example- when i launched crossover for the very first time i tried to install counterstrike. cs worked on maxed out quality. perfect!
and you don't deed to install m$win
and the apps are opening just like normal osx apps.
you don't mess up your file system. there is just one folder containing crossover and all the installed apps.
hmm, i cant think fast enough to tell how GREAT crossover is:)
give a try (60 days for free)
and just read the manual carefully
Well, I'll for sure give it a try once I get an Intel Mac... Thanks for the heads up, and I hope they keep working the bugs out so almost all the games work!
If you need to connect to the internet at least occasionally (to install updates to games or drivers, the OS to keep your gaming platform 'competive') then you will have to keep updating even your virtual PC with all security patches. If you think you can do without the internet (and download the occasional piece of software on the Mac and then copy it from there to your virtual PC) then you do not have to keep updating.
Actually I was just talking about hardware, there's always software to deal with for sure!

digitalbiker
Dec 22, 2006, 06:50 PM
While it's not Enterprise 4, I've installed Core 6 in Parallels a couple weeks ago and haven't had any problems yet. Granted, I'm not doing any heavy lifting with it, so long-term stability remains to be seen.

Thanks for the info.

Was this on your MacBook Pro or do you have a Mac Pro as well?

I was primarily wondering if it recognized the hardware on a Mac Pro properly and if the high-end graphics cards performed well for OpenGl calls?

Peel
Dec 22, 2006, 10:15 PM
Thanks for the info.

Was this on your MacBook Pro or do you have a Mac Pro as well?

I was primarily wondering if it recognized the hardware on a Mac Pro properly and if the high-end graphics cards performed well for OpenGl calls?

Oh, didn't realize you were asking about a Mac Pro. Sorry, my install is on a laptop, so don't know about your high end graphics card needing a driver or not.

failsafe1
Dec 22, 2006, 10:52 PM
I bought Parallels and then waited for the boot camp partition to be supported so I did not have to load two copies of Windows XP. The 2nd Beta supported this but man it was awful. I had to reregister Windows with each switch between bc and Parallels. Not anymore. Beta 3 is terrific. No troubles at all. I registered this time to get the official upgrade for this nice piece of software. I loaded Parallels software and configured everything in about 10 minutes. I had no glitches. Highly recommended.

SiliconAddict
Dec 22, 2006, 11:28 PM
VMWare is pretty close to Parallels in terms of feature set but without Coherence...........

SeVeN
Dec 22, 2006, 11:28 PM
VMWare seems to be faster. and i just bought Parallels like 2 weeks ago. :mad:

failsafe1
Dec 23, 2006, 12:04 AM
Coherence is my next question. I just posted about getting the new beta loaded with no problems and was researching with no luck how to use the coherence feature. I along with millions want to launch Windows media player from OSX to listen to audio books with DRM. Any ideas or documentation anywhere? I did not find any on the Parallels site where the beta is listed other than you can do this.

heisetax
Dec 23, 2006, 12:18 AM
It will be interesting to see how this competition plays out, smaller Parallels with headstart and more interesting features versus the industry behemoth VMWare with its much greater experience and resources.

I'm personally rooting for Parallels ;)



Why does it have to be one or the other? We've spent too long with not enough choices on the Mac. I'm not saying that we need 10 or 15 virtualization programs. 2 or 3 wouldn't hurt anything.

Take Excel as an example. No one has ever come close to what it can do for you & your programs. Just see how long they were at version 1! No competition in this case meant no updates. If another spreadsheet would be around that operated at the same level, we'd be seeing many more real advances.

I would think that the same would hold true for virtualization programs. You could counter by saying that Parallels is doing a good job in not resting on their laurels. But the counter could be that the promised release of VMWare Fusion for the Mac is putting the pressure on them not to rest.

This also means that we need Parallels to succeed to keep the pressure on VMWare not to rest on their laurels either. A thied one may be useful also. Just how far this can go before the market becomes too small for any of them to make enough money to be able to stay around.

For now I plan to also purchase VMWare Fusion. I've used Parallels the whole time that I've owned my Intel Mac Pro. It came on my wife's birthday Sep 12th.

Bill the TaxMan

sonicboom
Dec 23, 2006, 01:10 AM
VMWare is pretty close to Parallels in terms of feature set but without Coherence...........

Not really.

Vmware Fusion can run 2-way SMP, PAE, and 64bit operating systems. Big things that Parallels cannot do.

Although Parallels does have nice windows integration features, if that's what you're looking for.

sonicboom
Dec 23, 2006, 01:10 AM
VMWare seems to be faster. and i just bought Parallels like 2 weeks ago. :mad:

And Vmware Fusion is running in debug mode.

ChrisA
Dec 23, 2006, 03:32 AM
Why does it have to be one or the other? We've spent too long with not enough choices on the Mac. I'm not saying that we need 10 or 15 virtualization programs. 2 or 3 wouldn't hurt anything.

Take Excel as an example. No one has ever come close to what it can do for you & your programs. Just see how long they were at version 1! No competition in this case meant no updates. If another spreadsheet would be around that operated at the same level, we'd be seeing many more real advances.

I would think that the same would hold true for virtualization programs. You could counter by saying that Parallels is doing a good job in not resting on their laurels. But the counter could be that the promised release of VMWare Fusion for the Mac is putting the pressure on them not to rest.

This also means that we need Parallels to succeed to keep the pressure on VMWare not to rest on their laurels either. A thied one may be useful also. Just how far this can go before the market becomes too small for any of them to make enough money to be able to stay around.

For now I plan to also purchase VMWare Fusion. I've used Parallels the whole time that I've owned my Intel Mac Pro. It came on my wife's birthday Sep 12th.

Bill the TaxMan

There are other reasons to write software then to make money. Some nuts just like to do it. Open Source virtualization software has put price pressure on VMware. Pretty much forced then to give away some of their stuff. Same with Web browsers. Do you think Internet explorer would be free if not for the Moziac, Netscape, Firefox series being free? Solaris and Linux have a kind of virtualization built into the OS. Virtualization is going the same route as web browsers - free and comes with the OS. I don't see how Parallels can last long if that happens. VMware can because their free products are used to hook customers to their expensive enterprise software. The only free virtualization software I know of for the Mac is DEMU and other software based on it. but is not yet so nice as Parallels and VMware but then QEMU can do rosetta-like translations between Intel, PPC, SPARC and some others. So it's a big field with already more then a few players.

czeluff
Dec 23, 2006, 04:29 AM
Well, today, I tested both of these extensively, and I must say...

I like the Parallels beta better.

Concurrency works very well if you auto hide the dock and put it on the bottom. that way, the Windows taskbar extends across the whole bottom.

VMWare was extremely slow for my Intel MBP C2D compared to Parallels. Both were clean copies of Windows. 3d is still crappy in both....but it's better in Parallels.

Obviously, here's what going to happen soon: everyone will simply make a BootCamp partition, and then parallels/vmware will simply be a program that allows you to run the partition inside mac os. Obviously Parallels has a head start on this, though alot of developers in my area say that it's very buggy in this beta. Like everything Parallels has done so far, it keeps getting better, and will continue to get better.

I will say this about VMWare: if you want to run Solaris, VMWare Fusion works alot better. Parallels is definitely focusing in on XP/Vista, whereas VMWare treats all os virtualizations equally.

Chad Z

daneoni
Dec 23, 2006, 08:07 AM
Yeah, VMWare does slow my MBP down as well. I tried to install XP and my machine came to a crawl. I assigned two cores and 900MB of memory to it since i had 2GB.

None of this products have changed my doubts about virtualization. I think Bootcamp is still the way for me.

Glenny2lappies
Dec 23, 2006, 08:52 AM
I'm a big user of Parallels. I prefer the Mac, but I develop websites and have to use Windows for IE, Visual Studio and Visio. Using bootcamp seems rather pointless as it seems easier to use a much cheaper Windows machine. OK, I'm sure there's good reasons to use bootcamp, just not that many.

So, Coherence mode. Very interesting.

Since switching from Windows I've noticed that I use a Mac differently from Windows in that I now don't maximise the windows as I used to when running Windows (I hope that makes sense!). I still need to for Visual Studio, but when running IE (for testing websites - I wouldn't use the filthy thing out of choice for browsing) I would like to use it in 'Mac' mode, i.e. not full screen.

This is where Coherence mode comes in.

It means I can run my Mac apps - Firefox, DreamWeaver, Word, Entourage, iTunes, etc., in their normal windowed state, and now I can add Internet Exploder to this lot. Yeah, it looks crap, but then Windows is.

Well done Parallels. Some genuine innovation.

There's a couple of screenshots attached. I had to reduce the quality to get the filesize down to the limit.

LastZion
Dec 23, 2006, 09:57 AM
great thread, thanks for all the info guys. I think I will give parallels a try

michaelsaxon
Dec 23, 2006, 10:05 AM
I tried the latest beta but was unable to use my existing Boot Camp drive in my Mac Pro (it is my fourth hard drive, actually) during setup. The "use boot camp" option was grayed out.

I'd prefer not to install Windows again, so I'll probably buy this when they finally get that part properly engineered.

macridah
Dec 23, 2006, 10:21 AM
Anyone try the vmware on a mac pro running vista?

Glenny2lappies
Dec 23, 2006, 11:22 AM
Anyone try the vmware on a mac pro running vista?

Just a thought, but MS have mapped <WinKey><tab> to their new aero application switcher. This will interfere badly with Macs as Parallels have mapped the WinKey to <command>.

I reckon that MS did this deliberately to mess with our heads :eek:

lariat
Dec 23, 2006, 11:37 AM
Parallels and vmware benchmarks:

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3747448

0010101
Dec 23, 2006, 11:46 AM
Parallels rocks, man.

Might not be the best choice for hard core gamers or people who want to run high end modeling software under Windows on top of their Mac, but for general purpose application use, Fusion can't be beat.

Glenny2lappies
Dec 23, 2006, 12:12 PM
I installed VMWare and ran it against one of my old Windos 98 VMs (they're small so easily copied). It seems fine.

There's a warning that VMWare's compiled in a debug mode which is much slower (this might explain what a previous contributor's experienced).

Installing VMWare tools is fine. Needed to do a manual install of the VGA driver (it popped up a text file which contained decent information).

Had to register Windos98!!! to be able to download an Intel 82371AP/EB PCI to USB Universal Bus Controller (which then required me to find a Windos98 disc... yuck, sod it, I can't be arsed to root through all my CDs and I don't need USB on it....).

Main thing is it's working and connected to the Interweb. Don't think I'll bother to install the 31 updates though!

Nice. This really does solve an issue, a barrier even, between me using the Mac and them that don't know any better using the rubbish from Redmond. I'll now be able to use their VMs without going through the hassle of installing Widows.

Actually, this is a damn good point about VMs; it's one hell of a lot easier to back up a VM than to re-install a machine.

Attached a screenshot for a laugh.

I don't like the huge icons VMWare have used in the toolbar. I much prefer it to be down a side... Still, it's a beta and I'm sure it'll change.


.Glenn

Glenny2lappies
Dec 23, 2006, 12:18 PM
Parallels rocks, man.

Might not be the best choice for hard core gamers or people who want to run high end modeling software under Windows on top of their Mac, but for general purpose application use, Fusion can't be beat.

Not digging at 0x15, but I do wish the gamers would save themselves a ton of money and go and buy proper hardware and leave the rest of us alone. All most of us need is the thing to work with videos/dvds and with a decent screen resolution & colour depth.

It's just a bette noir of mine about gamers being the latest way that lappie manufacturers are flogging their wares - and ignoring professionals who need decent screen resolutions.... bah humbug.

Glenny2lappies
Dec 23, 2006, 12:32 PM
Parallels' arbitrary screen resize really is the mutts nuts. It's only a small thing, but it means you can run windows in 'maximised' mode, but not in the full screen mode. Or any other size for that matter.

Neat.

Yep, Parallels still has a large edge on VMWare (which to be fair is still only a beta).

Thinking about it, I think that Mac people are more fussy about user interfaces than Windows people. It's little tricks like arbitrary resize and general look and feel that could give Parallels the edge.


.Glenn

SiliconAddict
Dec 23, 2006, 01:25 PM
Not really.

Vmware Fusion can run 2-way SMP, PAE, and 64bit operating systems. Big things that Parallels cannot do.

Although Parallels does have nice windows integration features, if that's what you're looking for.

90% of the public doesn't care about 64-bit. PAE Probably applies to even less people. 2-Way SMP may be interesting. Right now though Parallels is ahead pure and simple.

SiliconAddict
Dec 23, 2006, 01:33 PM
Well, today, I tested both of these extensively, and I must say...

I like the Parallels beta better.

Concurrency works very well if you auto hide the dock and put it on the bottom. that way, the Windows taskbar extends across the whole bottom.

VMWare was extremely slow for my Intel MBP C2D compared to Parallels. Both were clean copies of Windows. 3d is still crappy in both....but it's better in Parallels.

Obviously, here's what going to happen soon: everyone will simply make a BootCamp partition, and then parallels/vmware will simply be a program that allows you to run the partition inside mac os. Obviously Parallels has a head start on this, though alot of developers in my area say that it's very buggy in this beta. Like everything Parallels has done so far, it keeps getting better, and will continue to get better.

I will say this about VMWare: if you want to run Solaris, VMWare Fusion works alot better. Parallels is definitely focusing in on XP/Vista, whereas VMWare treats all os virtualizations equally.

Chad Z


REALLY not a fair comparison. Parallels "beta" is an extension of their existing software which has had many of the bugs worked out of it. VMWare's Fusion is literally a 1.0 release with, I'm assuming, a TON of debug code running throughout it.

asencif
Dec 23, 2006, 02:55 PM
Installed VMWare last night on my Mac Pro and then created a VM of WinXPSP2. Dedicated 512MB to it and it's running pretty fast and with the VM Tools I can just drag the mouse right out and in without any key commands.

I have used earlier versions of Parallels, although no on MP and it seemed very slow. The fact that VMWare is running in debug mode and fast(at least on a MP) is impressive.

I do like the coherence feature in Parallels, so I will give that new beta a try later on. One thing I would like to see is Firewire support added for these two products.

strange days
Dec 23, 2006, 11:09 PM
Does the latest beta of PARALLELS run XP on 2 cores ?

EDIT : ...nevermind me, found my own answer myself...

=P

giovanniP
Dec 24, 2006, 08:36 AM
Pay attention booting from bootcamp windows xp partition with parallels beta2: it alters windows configuration and requires Windows XP re-registering for highly altered hardware config.

IscariotJ
Dec 24, 2006, 09:14 AM
Out of interest was it on a macpro, and did it recognise your keyboard.

For me none of the virtual images recognise my apple keybaord or my wireless logitech one, so I can not install anything at all.

It was on a MacBook, I'm afraid. Haven't had any issues with it recognising the keyboard. Have you posted on the VMware forum? It seems that there are some devs loitering around on there.

Be interesting to know what caused it, as a MacPro is going to be next purchase, and Fusion is one of the things that I will be running on it.

Simon R.
Dec 24, 2006, 10:04 AM
this new beta for Parallels is horrible so far....it slows down my mac badly. and it does not automatically adjust the resolution either. I don't know what's going on here. maybe i did something wrong.

did anyone notice this? now I also have to lock inside the console to move the mouse whereas I didn't have to do that in Beta 1.

Yep I have a lot of problems with it as well. The previous versions I tried, when I activated "full screen" with Parallels on my 2nd Mac monitor, it would simply adjust to that screen and go full screen. What it does now is, it seems to resize to that monitors resolution, and then place itself on the FIRST monitor instead, resultning in not full screen, but... 3/4 of the screen, the rest being black.

Also, the Coherence feature, while cool, needs some work. I had some strange crashes and I could hardly get back to OS X again and such.

heisetax
Dec 24, 2006, 07:37 PM
Has anyone actually got the Fusion beta to run? After install I double clicked at the app shows for a quick second and then quits. I looked at the console log file at it shows:

Cannot load message dictionary "/Library/Application Support/VMware Fusion/messages/en/

I looked at that location and sure enough theres no messages directory. Ooops, did they forget to include some files in the installer?


I have the same experience that you have. Another person reported the same problem as we have. He is using a Intel MacBook Pro with several external drives connected to it. All he did was disconnect his drives & he says that it then worked. I have an Intel Mac Pro. I tried mine with all external items disconnected other than keyboard & trackball. I still came out just like you did.

I've reported it as a problem. Because of the closeness of Christmas, I have not yet received an answer.

Bill the TaxMan

user13
Dec 25, 2006, 06:50 AM
Does anyone have any screenshots of Coherence? This sounds very interesting, but I'd like to see how it looks, and the Parallels website doesn't offer any.

Actually there is a screenshot of Coherence on their official site - it is in the official blog. Here it is: coherence picture (http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/3763/2249/1600/923528/coherence.png)

inkhead
Dec 25, 2006, 02:25 PM
VMware will win in the long run. All the little features that Parallels keeps adding, are ALL on the VMware roadmap, VMware is just a bigger company that has high standards for quality control. I've been lucky enough to visit VMware and see their betas (the ones not released) and the user interfaces, and feature set make Parallels look bad.

Did you know that Parallels isn't even a true Cocoa application? it's a qt app, that has JAVA for it's interface! Fusion on the other hand was built from scratch, from the ground up with x-code, and is a full-blown cocoa application. Most of the team at VMware are ex-apple employees, as well as their user interface designers. While Parallels make look sexy, and have more functionality now it won't be able to hide its true colors for long.

Take the latest Parallels beta, with "usb 2.0" support. It's absolutely crap, you can finally see they are building on a "house of cards". I do admire the Parallels team, they were the first out, and did us all a HUGE favor. But when I plug in USB 2.0 stuff, and my machine HANGS (java libs loading), and kernel panics because of my two USB hubs it starts to get really annoying. Or try installing the Parallel Tools while having a DVD in the drive... You're in for a REAL treat! :mad:

Not to mention the way Parallels shares it's resources with Mac OS X. For example, I have a Motorola Q phone, which recently had a fantastic software update, that of course was Windows only. Being that Mac OS X, DOES SEE the Motorola Q, and So does Parallels I fired up the .exe with the hope of Updating my phone firmware through Parallels... Obviously it didn't work, it can't properly share if Mac OS X, "grabs a hold" of the device so to speak.

So I did the exact same thing in Fusion (which is an early beta), and my computer didn't freeze while it loaded the VM, didn't KERNEL panic, and Installed the FIRMWARE UPDATE TO MY PHONE!!!!!!! This is absolutely INCREDIBLE USB support. It's very complex to do a firmware update to your phone (easy to fry it period), let alone work properly through a VM, when Mac OS X is also trying to access the phone at the same time. This to me was impressive! VMware's products (windows & linux) have always had amazing device support, and with the release of the next version of workstation (very soon) ;-) There will be graphic acceleration!

While I do love the features of Parallels, for now I've stopped using it, it's not stable, and craps out anytime I forget to unplug all my USB devices....
It just shows at the heart of Parallels the app IS built on a deck of cards. VMware on the other hand is a object-c Cocoa with rock-solid base, that features can be built upon, and will also be able to use whatever new features, looks, style, resolution independence, and other features offered by Leopard when it ships.

Not to mention the 9,000 + pre-build virtual appliances you can download from VMwares site or use with ANY platform.

Just my two cents...

Anonymous Freak
Dec 25, 2006, 11:28 PM
Wow. I'm amazed. We're on 5 pages of comments, and mine will be only the 5th one making fun of the "drap/drop" typo. Did few people actually notice this typo, or is everyone just ignoring it? :D

To inkhead: You're ragging on Parallels because they only just added a feature (USB 2.0) that VMWare has in their beta. Even so, Parallels came out with it a day before VMWare, and has had SOMETHING available for months now. That's like comparing the Vista beta to the Leopard beta, and complaining that the Vista beta sucks because it introduced automatic backing up in a later beta, right before the first Leopard beta with it came out. They're both BETA! Deal with it. They add features.

As for it not being a true Cocoa app? So what! Cocoa isn't the only 'official' API for OS X. Compiled Java is just as good as Cocoa for almost everything. NeoOffice, the semi-official OpenOffice.org Aqua-native port, uses Java for it's interface as well. Are you saying that it is crap as well?

Parallels isn't perfect. But the first release is good enough that I bought it. And release 2 looks from the BETAS (again, they're beta, expect problems,) to be even better. If you don't like the stability of the betas, then go back to the latest release version. If you absolutely, positively MUST have the features in the beta, then you put up with the idiosyncrasies of the beta. That's the way betas go. I've used betas and developer previews for a whole bunch of operating systems, dating back to System 7, and the betas are almost always buggy. That's why they're beta, not final!

As for hardware support in Parallels, as of the previous beta build (3036, was it?) and the current beta, I have had no problems getting any of my USB devices to work properly. Not even the Microsoft Sidewinder joystick that stubbornly refused to work at all in the latest release build. (Gotta play my Flight Simulator, after all.) I find that some devices only work properly if I turn on 'Connect USB devices automatically', so that OS X never really has a chance to 'grab ahold' of it.

Glenny2lappies
Dec 26, 2006, 05:50 AM
Yep I have a lot of problems with it as well. The previous versions I tried, when I activated "full screen" with Parallels on my 2nd Mac monitor, it would simply adjust to that screen and go full screen. What it does now is, it seems to resize to that monitors resolution, and then place itself on the FIRST monitor instead, resultning in not full screen, but... 3/4 of the screen, the rest being black.

Also, the Coherence feature, while cool, needs some work. I had some strange crashes and I could hardly get back to OS X again and such.

I'd suggest there's something wrong. My Parallels beta works perfectly on my MBP with two monitors.

I use the attached monitor as the primary monitor with Parallels running on that one. It's fine. Go into full screen mode and it 'cubes' both monitors, and leaves the Windows running full screen in the attached monitor and iTunes/etc running in the foreground of the MBP monitor.

Coherence mode is fine as well as the arbitary size adjust.

It also doesn't slow down. If anything it appears faster running the beta than the old 1970 build.

.Glenn

Simon R.
Dec 26, 2006, 08:21 AM
I'd suggest there's something wrong. My Parallels beta works perfectly on my MBP with two monitors.

I use the attached monitor as the primary monitor with Parallels running on that one. It's fine. Go into full screen mode and it 'cubes' both monitors, and leaves the Windows running full screen in the attached monitor and iTunes/etc running in the foreground of the MBP monitor.

Coherence mode is fine as well as the arbitary size adjust.

It also doesn't slow down. If anything it appears faster running the beta than the old 1970 build.

.Glenn


The only thing that could be "wrong" is this new beta of Parallels. But why shouldn't there be - it's a beta. I am sure they get things sorted out.

failsafe1
Dec 26, 2006, 08:32 AM
Pay attention booting from bootcamp windows xp partition with parallels beta2: it alters windows configuration and requires Windows XP re-registering for highly altered hardware config.

I had this problem and quit using the Parallels beta until the newest beta. You only have to activate Windows once in Parallels and you are good to go.

SPUY767
Dec 26, 2006, 09:08 AM
I wonder, will there come a day soon when I don't need to keep my PC around and up to date for gaming? 'Cause that would be really, really cool...
Admittedly I haven't looked that hard into it, but is this within the realm of possibility with these programs and the intel mac hardware?

That day was months ago. The instant my MacPro arrived at my doorstep, I yanked the 7950 out of my Gaming PC, shoehorned it into the MacPro, got a fourth HD for Windows, and I haven't needed a PC since. Now the old PC finds itself underclocked and sitting in the living room relegated to media center duty.

And another thing that pisses me off. The parallels beta only works with Boot Camp partitions on your PRIMARY DRIVE! That is horse manure, I may as well have wiped my hind parts with the $80.00 and burned it. Even after I called those know nothings at Parallels to ask them if it would work with its own drive.

aristobrat
Dec 26, 2006, 09:17 AM
VMware will win in the long run.
Unless Apple buys Parallels and includes it in future OS releases, no?

marcin
Dec 26, 2006, 09:30 AM
I Used 2 Months Parallels And Got Those New From Macrumors About Beta For Fusion, I Downloaded And It's The Best Thing For My Work On Mac, I Use Autodesk Software Revit Which Didn't Work In Parallels Very Well, Temporary Dimensions Were Not Possoble To Read(to Small) And Mouse Functioning Was Very Bad, Some Other Things, In Fusion Wow No Difference To Pc, Works Great, Now I Can Do Everything On Mac.
By The Way, I Wrote To Parallels Support And They Ignore Clients, It's Been Few Weeks And No Response At All About Above Listed Issues So I Am Great That Fusion Came To The Market.
Good Job Vmware !!!!! Thank You

odedia
Dec 26, 2006, 09:44 AM
Well, all I know is that I am able to achieve about 100 frames-per-second encoding with parallels, using MeGUI and x264 encoder.

This is sometimes better than native Mac OS X encodings. What more can I ask for? and it does NOT suffocate my computer at all. But then again - I do have 2GB of RAM.

Parallels is great, and if the Boot camp feature will finally work it will be even better. drap and drop is a breeze as well. Windows Express install is just plain fun - you enter the serial number for windows and let the installation run in the background. I don't even need to look at it.

By the way, it took Windows 3 days to became infested with viruses and Trojan horses. God, I'm glad I switched to the Mac...

Oded S.

Arcus
Dec 26, 2006, 11:33 AM
Unless Apple buys Parallels and includes it in future OS releases, no?


Oh god I hope not.

psychofreak
Dec 26, 2006, 11:45 AM
Unless Apple buys Parallels and includes it in future OS releases, no?

I would like apple themselves to develop transparency with WINE, they did pretty well with Rosetta, and imagine ALL WINDOWS GAMES - no more reasons not to switch. Codeweavers are OK, but have a load of incompatability issues.

aristobrat
Dec 26, 2006, 12:27 PM
I would like apple themselves to develop transparency with WINE, they did pretty well with Rosetta, and imagine ALL WINDOWS GAMES - no more reasons not to switch. Codeweavers are OK, but have a load of incompatability issues.
As cool as a Rosetta for Windows would be, I think that the best it'll probably ever get will be like with Parallel's Coherency. I'd imagine that there are just too many Windows apps that do things in a wonky manner for anyone to get Wine/Codeweavers to work with virtually everything like VMWare/Parallels does.

Oh god I hope not.
Virtualization would be a pretty kick-butt feature for Apple to say that their OS ships with. "Not only can OS X run Windows apps, it can now run [Linux, Beos, etc] applications." That'd probably switch quite a few more people to OS X!

AidenShaw
Dec 26, 2006, 12:38 PM
Virtualization would be a pretty kick-butt feature for Apple to say that their OS ships with. "Not only can OS X run Windows apps, it can now run [Linux, Beos, etc] applications." That'd probably switch quite a few more people to OS X!
So OSX could run the same set of virtual machines operating systems that Windows can run - not sure why that would attract more switchers.

Note that Windows is already adding virtualization to the core OS

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/virtual/default.mspx
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6075111.html
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1946420,00.asp

aristobrat
Dec 26, 2006, 01:17 PM
So OSX could run the same set of virtual machines operating systems that Windows can run - not sure why that would attract more switchers.
I was just thinking that it would make OS X more attractive if it came as part of the supported OS vs. the current "Oh, now that you have your new iMac and want to run Microsoft Money without rebooting into Boot Camp, you'll need to go buy Parallels Workstation. No, Apple doesn't make that, so if you have any problems you can't use your ProCare to get a session on it or ask the Genii any questions about it. Sorry. But it does pretty much work." spiel that switchers currently have to deal with. Boot Camp is cool, however I think most average switchers are going to be looking for the non-obtrusiveness that virtualization gives them, and I think Apple could do a better job in helping deliver that. No?

Note that Windows is already adding virtualization to the core OS
Right, and the Linux world has been playing around with Xen, but neither really offer anything to the consumer currently (unless Vista's shipping with something I haven't found yet). :)

Richard Hallas
Dec 26, 2006, 02:13 PM
I've been using Parallels with much satisfaction for quite some time, but I had two problems with it until recently. The first was that the most important piece of 'serious' software I wanted to use under it didn't work properly, and I could only use it under Boot Camp. The other was that my favourite PC game wouldn't work because of CD copy-protection.

The latest Parallels beta is no better at running the 'problem application', but it does now cope with copy-protected CDs, so the game now works perfectly. I can also now use it with my Boot Camp partition, which saves me a few gigabytes of drive space (important on a laptop), so I'm very pleased with it indeed.

I was interested to try out Fusion, though, to see if it would run my 'problem' application. The answer was that it wouldn't. (The problem may be, in Fusion's case, that it offers only 16MB of video RAM, and you can't adjust this. You don't appear to be able to adjust this in Fusion, though Parallels lets you configure up to 32MB, which my 'problem application' requires.)

Anyway, Fusion seemed to work reasonably well, but its range of features appears much smaller than those offered by Parallels. I like the quality of the icons in the toolbar more than those of Parallels (which seem rather gaudy), but I don't like the fact that they waste a lot of room. If they were down the side of the window, as they are in Parallels, they wouldn't be a problem, but having them across the top means that the largest Windows desktop I can see all at once on my 1280x800 MacBook is an 800x600 desktop. In Parallels there's enough room in the window for an 1152x768 screen mode without it going off the Mac's screen. But then, Parallels also lets me to set arbitrary desktop sizes just by resizing the window, which is nice.

The thing that worried me about Fusion, though, was how unstable it made my MacBook, which goes against what people have said here about how reliable it's supposed to be. It installed three kernel extensions, and I found that on two occasions my MacBook suffered a serious kernel panic and had to be reset, even though I hadn't run Fusion itself. (Its kexts were of course installed.) I got a couple of other kernel panics immediately after running Fusion, too. This is not an unstable MacBook; I haven't got many 'system extras' installed on it (no Haxies, for instance), and it never normally crashes. With the Fusion beta installed, though, it kernel-panicked four times in one day, twice without even having launched the software. I therefore uninstalled Fusion, and the machine has been perfectly stable again ever since.

I quite liked the look of Fusion, but it seems to me that it's a long way behind Parallels at present. It also gave me great trouble with accessing the optical drive in my MacBook. I managed it eventually, but it involved a few restarts of the virtual machine and fiddling about with non-obvious configuration choices. So, it seems to have a fair way to go to catch up with Parallels, but it'll be interesting to see how it develops.

AidenShaw
Dec 26, 2006, 02:14 PM
Boot Camp is cool, however I think most average switchers are going to be looking for the non-obtrusiveness that virtualization gives them, and I think Apple could do a better job in helping deliver that. No?

Apple might be able to work out the DRM so that you could run OSX inside an Apple virtualization environment.

Arcus
Dec 26, 2006, 03:49 PM
Virtualization would be a pretty kick-butt feature for Apple to say that their OS ships with. "Not only can OS X run Windows apps, it can now run [Linux, Beos, etc] applications." That'd probably switch quite a few more people to OS X!

Oh I agree with that. Im just not a big fan of Parallels. Yes I use it. Im looking forward to trying fusion.

If Apple chose to do virtualization as part of the OS I hope it would allow us not to have to install the OS at all. If we did , I would feel more comfortable with them choosing VM or Para.

weldon
Dec 26, 2006, 04:14 PM
Frankly, whoever gets 3D apps (including games) working first gets my money. I'll use BootCamp for a while until the situation with DirectX and 3D support becomes more clear.

SPUY767
Dec 26, 2006, 04:21 PM
Frankly, whoever gets 3D apps (including games) working first gets my money. I'll use BootCamp for a while until the situation with DirectX and 3D support becomes more clear.

If you're all about games there will never be a solution that comes even close to boot camp. So just forget about it. If it's productivity apps that you're after, then a good virtualization solution will be one that can use not only a seperate partition, but a seperate drive, and can operate invisibly.

SiliconAddict
Dec 26, 2006, 04:24 PM
By the way, it took Windows 3 days to became infested with viruses and Trojan horses. God, I'm glad I switched to the Mac...

Oded S.

Then I'm sorry to say you don't know how to drive a computer. :rolleyes:

mac_md
Dec 26, 2006, 04:42 PM
Can somebody lay out the basics for a 'windows on Mac' newbie's mom? :D

My parents will be buying an iMac imminently, and they will need to run likely one single Windows geneology program. With all the 'stuff still in beta' and various options, what's the best and simplest way to set her up?

Consider buying Reunion, an excellent Mac geneology program. Windows data can be inprted as a GEDCOM file.

Or use parallels with WinXP and their current program. Parallels was plenty of power to run any gen. program. Just buy Parallels and install the program with their current version of Windows. Very easy....may have to call Redmond to get an authentification code for Windows. Tell them, correctly, that you have bought a new computer and are trashing the old one.

SPUY767
Dec 26, 2006, 07:41 PM
Then I'm sorry to say you don't know how to drive a computer. :rolleyes:

Yup, I've been running windows on my media center, and my laptop for months and months and months and not so much as a single virus. And I don't even use an AV program. If you know how to use any computer properly you can avoid virus threats. The root of the virus debate is protecting the average user from themselves.

seashellz2
Dec 26, 2006, 08:10 PM
still want to see a list of the pros and cons of both Fusion/Crossover WINE and Parallels.

OH.


Yeah>
Anyone see the front page story 12/25/06 (at least in the Seattle PI-in MS territory):

HUGE SECURITY FLAW FOUND IN VISTA
some Ruskie Security outfit found it.

Do they hire idiots for programmers or what?

BuzWeaver
Dec 26, 2006, 08:33 PM
I wonder, will there come a day soon when I don't need to keep my PC around and up to date for gaming? 'Cause that would be really, really cool...
Admittedly I haven't looked that hard into it, but is this within the realm of possibility with these programs and the intel mac hardware?

As a gamer myself I'm looking for the day where the possibly of running the games I play and the Beta's on a Mac will be a great day indeed.

weldon
Dec 26, 2006, 09:02 PM
Consider buying Reunion, an excellent Mac geneology program. Windows data can be inprted as a GEDCOM file.
Reunion is a great program, but I'm also very impressed with what you can do online at Ancestry.com. I hadn't looked at it for a few years, but I took advantage of a free trial and I'm really impressed with where they are taking online genealogy. You can import and export standard GEDCOM files from ancestry.com, but I also really like how easily you can share all the family tree info that you put together.

uNext
Dec 26, 2006, 10:02 PM
Originally Posted by odedia

By the way, it took Windows 3 days to became infested with viruses and Trojan horses. God, I'm glad I switched to the Mac...

Oded S.


I hate it when "noobs" blame windows xp on their mistakes.
point blank is like other memebers mentioned if that happened to you
is because you dont know how to drive a computer.

i ran microsoft xp without an av program and never had problems
DONT BLAME MICROSOFT for your inability to properly use a computer.
Is like saying thank god i left honda for a bmw the honda kept on running out of gas.

is all about the end users ability.

Westside guy
Dec 27, 2006, 03:19 AM
I hate it when "noobs" blame windows xp on their mistakes.
point blank is like other memebers mentioned if that happened to you
is because you dont know how to drive a computer.

Personally, I hate it when people make sweeping statements either way.

XP SP2 is reasonably secure in its default configuration. XP as a whole has had a horrendous track record security-wise; and some of the biggest exploits that occurred cannot reasonably be blamed on "n00bs".

BuzWeaver
Dec 27, 2006, 08:01 AM
Originally Posted by odedia

By the way, it took Windows 3 days to became infested with viruses and Trojan horses. God, I'm glad I switched to the Mac...

Oded S.


I hate it when "noobs" blame windows xp on their mistakes.
point blank is like other memebers mentioned if that happened to you
is because you dont know how to drive a computer.

i ran microsoft xp without an av program and never had problems
DONT BLAME MICROSOFT for your inability to properly use a computer.
Is like saying thank god i left honda for a bmw the honda kept on running out of gas.

is all about the end users ability.

Having been in the Apple world for just over a month now I can say that to an extent there are equal proportions of problems between the PC and the Apple, they just fall in different areas. People that are PC savvy or have worked in the PC field as I have typically can handle or correct issues that may arise.

It really boils down to how knowledgeable a person is about a system or OS.

AidenShaw
Dec 27, 2006, 09:19 AM
By the way, it took Windows 3 days to became infested with viruses and Trojan horses.
It would be a good idea to invest a few dollars in a hardware firewall to protect your Apple as well.

Being invisible on the Internet is a good tactic regardless of your OS.

Snowy_River
Dec 27, 2006, 11:10 AM
As cool as a Rosetta for Windows would be, I think that the best it'll probably ever get will be like with Parallel's Coherency. I'd imagine that there are just too many Windows apps that do things in a wonky manner for anyone to get Wine/Codeweavers to work with virtually everything like VMWare/Parallels does...

Well, if you recall, Classic worked in much the same way that Codeweavers does. It wasn't 100% compatible, especially with software that tried to access hardware in peculiar ways. I can't count the number of applications that were rock-solid in OS 9, but were either unstable or simply wouldn't run at all under Classic in OS X. Essentially, I gave all these applications up. Would I want to go back? Absolutely not.

So, if Apple introduced an equivalent to Classic for Windows apps (which, one could easily argue, is closer to what Parallels is doing with Coherency, but see my comments farther on about where I see Coherency falling short of the mark), based on the WINE, even if it couldn't run a lot of Windows programs, the ability to say "Now Mac OS X can run most common Windows applications through our new WINE-X emulation layer..." would be incredibly powerful. Would it run everything? No, but neither did Classic. Would it gain more switchers? Most likely...

...Boot Camp is cool, however I think most average switchers are going to be looking for the non-obtrusiveness that virtualization gives them, and I think Apple could do a better job in helping deliver that. No?...

My personal pet peeve with virtualization, dual boots, etc. is that they aren't unobtrusive. Why? Because you end up storing your files in multiple different places. You loose double-click functionality. And so on.

Suppose you have your system set up to work with the "unobtrusive" method of Parallels Coherence. Someone emails you a Word file. Because you have this unobtrusive set-up, you only have Office for Windows. Can you double click on the file? No. Can you save it in your documents folder and then open Word to open the file? No, because Word sees a different file system, a different disk, etc. (Sure, you can share your whole Documents folder with your VM, but then what if you dragged the file to the desktop? Do you just set-up every directory on the Mac side as a share with the VM?) And what if you write a document in Word, then save it and later want to attach it to an email? Well, if you saved it on the VM disk, you'll have to drag it out of there, right?

Let me go ahead and say that I haven't tried Parallels or VMware, so I don't know how seamlessly they have managed to implement file sharing between the host and guest machines. To a significant extent, I'm speaking from experience with VPC, and a couple of other emulators from years gone by.

What I really want is a means of running applications where OS X can handle file recognition, so I can double click; an application icon appears in the Dock; and the application runs in the same filesystem as the main system. Codeweavers CrossOver gets a lot closer to this than either VMware or Parallels, from what I've seen, though Parallels Coherence is a step in the right direction. I don't have an issue, so much, with running a full instance of Windows. If only a means could be determined to run it in the same way that a full instance of OS 9 was run inside of OS X to give us Classic.

aristobrat
Dec 27, 2006, 11:36 AM
I can't count the number of applications that were rock-solid in OS 9, but were either unstable or simply wouldn't run at all under Classic in OS X. Essentially, I gave all these applications up. Would I want to go back? Absolutely not.
That's cool. I'm a relative new switcher, so I have no Classic experience. I came with the first Mac mini I bought two summers ago, but I never messed with it.

I like your idea where OS X would be aware of the file extensions and be smart enough to handle the different document types, regardless of the OS of the handling application. :)

Snowy_River
Dec 27, 2006, 02:42 PM
That's cool. I'm a relative new switcher, so I have no Classic experience. I came with the first Mac mini I bought two summers ago, but I never messed with it.

I like your idea where OS X would be aware of the file extensions and be smart enough to handle the different document types, regardless of the OS of the handling application. :)

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think the Classic model is a good analogy. After all, early on, for those of us who had OS 9 applications that we didn't want to give up, if they didn't work in Classic we had to reboot in OS 9. Now we have Boot Camp, which gives the same option to switchers for booting, but we still need the equivalent of Classic where most standard Windows apps can be run right inside of OS X. That will be the advancement that I'll cheer.

Of course, such an advancement will have to be done carefully by Apple, as they don't want it to be too easy to run Windows apps, or the number of people developing for OS X might drop...

bbh
Dec 28, 2006, 05:22 PM
I have tried and tried to use an XP Home upgrade disk to build a VMWare virtual machine. It just won't recognize the previous version disk.

Parallels has no problem. Is it me, or have others experienced this?

brianriceca
Dec 29, 2006, 08:55 PM
(The problem may be, in Fusion's case, that it offers only 16MB of video RAM, and you can't adjust this. You don't appear to be able to adjust this in Fusion, though Parallels lets you configure up to 32MB, which my 'problem application' requires.)


You can adjust the amount of video RAM, although there's no user-interface for this in the current beta release. You must add a line to the virtual machine's configuration file (its .vmx file). For example, for 64 MB:

svga.vramSize = 67108864

I have successfully booted up a Windows XP SP2 VM with 64 MB of video RAM this way. Caution: don't expect arbitrary values to work; I tried 128 MB, and the result was a white screen.

Note: you can only edit a .vmx file while the VM it's for is powered off.

But then, Parallels also lets me to set arbitrary desktop sizes just by resizing the window, which is nice.


You can also do this with Fusion, as long as you have the VMware Tools package installed inside the guest OS. The installation is trivial for Windows guests (once the VM is powered up and you're logged in, pull down the Virtual Machine menu and pick Install VMware Tools) and a bit tricky for Linux and other Unixy guests, because a little additional command-line work is needed. This leads people to believe they've installed VMware Tools when they haven't. There's a link in the docs for the commands.

The thing that worried me about Fusion, though, was how unstable it made my MacBook, which goes against what people have said here about how reliable it's supposed to be. It installed three kernel extensions, and I found that on two occasions my MacBook suffered a serious kernel panic and had to be reset, even though I hadn't run Fusion itself.

That's the kind of problem that the current public beta is designed to smoke out. If you don't have time to file a bug report, you can post an account of your experience on the beta forum. A lot of VMware employees (including me) hang out there. Visit http://www.vmware.com/community/; once you make an account and log in, you'll see the beta forums, including Fusion's.

brianriceca
Dec 29, 2006, 09:02 PM
Let me go ahead and say that I haven't tried Parallels or VMware, so I don't know how seamlessly they have managed to implement file sharing between the host and guest machines.

In VMware Fusion, the host and the guests view each other as peers on the network. For example, I use Mac OS's Windows Sharing feature to share my Mac's home directory, and then I mount it in my XP guest as a share and give it a drive letter.

It's also possible to do this using Fusion's Shared Folders feature, which is especially useful in a workgroup+DHCP environment where your file server might change its IP address without telling anybody.

But the big catch is that applications in the guest see a different tree of files than does the host. For example, what's /Users/brice on my Mac is M:\ in my guest.

I'm not sure how Parallels Coherence handles this problem.

tencargarage
Jan 3, 2007, 02:15 PM
It has been awhile since vmware was made a public beta. I was wondering what has been the experience to date of those using this software.

Was the install easy? Software seem stable? Any major gotchas?

I would like to try this software once to has gotten a bit of a shakeout.

lavrishevo
Jan 10, 2007, 12:42 AM
Just installed the VMWare Public Beta with no problems at all. Seems good and stable right now with office, photoshop, premier, cool edit, pro show, and others working great. I can tell it is slower then boot camp but I think this is to be expected, especially with the debugging deal going on. I am fairly new to mac's so forgive me if I ask any stupid questions.

1: How is this going to work with the beta only being good till May, or at least my serial. This will mean I will have to pay for the software to get a good serial? Will it allow me to de-activate the debugging deal?

2: If I were to try Parallels, which I have not yet, will Parallels recognize the install I have already done or do I need to do it all over again?

Thanks for any info.

brianriceca
Jan 11, 2007, 10:38 AM
Disclaimer: although I work for VMware, I'm not an official spokesperson.

Just installed the VMWare Public Beta with no problems at all. Seems good and stable right now with office, photoshop, premier, cool edit, pro show, and others working great. I can tell it is slower then boot camp but I think this is to be expected, especially with the debugging deal going on.

Yes, the code is jam-packed with debugging functions, so I would avoid drawing conclusions about performance.

1: How is this going to work with the beta only being good till May, or at least my serial. This will mean I will have to pay for the software to get a good serial? Will it allow me to de-activate the debugging deal?

When Fusion becomes an actual product (not just a beta release) there will definitely be a fresh download. It won't just be a matter of somehow unlocking the software you already have. You'll download a fresh binary, with only the normal debug-support code we put into all shipping products (not the bigtime debug infrastructure we build into betas).

Pricing has not yet been announced, so there's nothing I can say about that; sorry.

2: If I were to try Parallels, which I have not yet, will Parallels recognize the install I have already done or do I need to do it all over again?

I assume you're asking whether you'll need to build a new virtual machine for use with Parallels. Parallels VMs and VMware VMs are not the same thing, so the simplest course of action is to keep 'em separate. People have successfully brought Parallels VMs into VMware Fusion, but it takes work. In the other direction, I believe our esteemed competitors have a tool for importing virtual machines. (Although VMware also has an importer tool, we have not released a version that's been tested to work with Parallels VMs.)

But my basic point is that you should not just point one product at the other product's VMs without some prior preparation.

I'm glad you're enjoying VMware Fusion.