PDA

View Full Version : Parallels, VMWare Show Off Mac OS X Server Virtualization




MacRumors
Jan 17, 2008, 06:45 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Virtualization competitors Parallels (http://www.parallels.com/) and VMWare (http://www.vmware.com/) were taking opposite sides of the South Hall at Macworld to show off Mac OS X Server running in a virtualized environment on Apple hardware (made possible by changes (http://www.enews20.com/news_Mac_OS_X_Server_Virtualization_Allowed_by_Apple_Inc_03419.html) to Mac OS 10.5's EULA for Leopard Server).

For its part, Parallels showed off a new product, currently in beta, called Parallels Server (http://parallelsvirtualization.blogspot.com/2008/01/parallels-server-open-beta-launches.html) (previously announced (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/09/parallels-server-runs-virtualized-mac-os-x/)). Parallels is targeting Parallels Server for users of server hardware, as the software contains hooks that allow more in-depth monitoring of the hardware that the desktop edition does not allow. In beta, the software currently supports up to 2-way SMP for virtual machines, although they state that the shipping version will support 4-way SMP. This SMP support will eventually find its way into their Desktop product. Parallels received a Best of Show award (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/17/macworld-best-of-show-awards-and-others/) for Parallels Server from Macworld.


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2008/01/17/183702-DSC_0016_300.jpg

Parallels Server Display, running on a previous generation Xserve
VMWare (http://www.vmware.com) has also been busy working to support Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard Server in a virtualized environment. At Macworld, they demoed a technology preview which showed VMWare running multiple server operating systems with the usual hardware support. Sound and accelerated video were not working, however, and VMWare could not commit whether such support would be included in the final shipping version. As a technology preview, no product was announced and no ship date yet available.


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2008/01/17/190634-vmware1_300.jpg

VMWare booth
VMWare also pointed out that VMWare Importer Beta 2 (http://www.vmware.com/download/fusion/importer_tool.html) was released late last week which includes support for VirtualPC virtual machines and improves support for importing Parallels virtual machines.

Both companies offer free trial versions of their standard virtualization software which allows Intel Mac owners to run Windows or Linux: Parallels Desktop 3.0 (http://www.parallels.com/en/products/desktop/) and VMWare Fusion 1.1 (http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/)

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/17/parallels-vmware-show-off-mac-os-x-server-virtualization/)



Frisco
Jan 17, 2008, 06:48 PM
What we need is for Mac OS X on X86 boxes. Then we're talking. I know, I know it has been debated a million times before.

twoodcc
Jan 17, 2008, 06:49 PM
awesome stuff! looks like Parallels is one step ahead right now though

powermac_daddy
Jan 17, 2008, 06:53 PM
Parallels and Fusion.

Which one is better? I hear fusion, am i right?

arkmannj
Jan 17, 2008, 06:53 PM
awesome stuff! looks like Parallels is one step ahead right now though

True, but VMWare has a stronger hold with Companies, I think many companies would wait for VMWare. But Competition is certainly a good thing :-) keep 'em both on their toes innovating

arkmannj
Jan 17, 2008, 06:55 PM
Parallels and Fusion.

Which one is better? I hear fusion, am i right?

It's mostly preference, I prefer Fusion I have friends that swear by Parallels.
but truth be told all of them that have tried the Fusion trial period have purchased it. (And deleted their Parallels install)

VMWare Fusion education price is something like $35 or $39.

ricosuave
Jan 17, 2008, 07:00 PM
It's mostly preference, I prefer Fusion I have friends that swear by Parallels.
but truth be told all of them that have tried the Fusion trial period have purchased it.

VMWare Fusion education price is something like $35 or $39.

I'm in the VMWare Fusion camp myself. I cannot wait to try Leo server inside this app.

But for some reason I cannot get the apps (windows programs) to move from one edge of the monitor to the opposite edge of the second monitor while running in their Unity mode. Parallels had no issue with this. Does anyone have this happened to them?

freiheit
Jan 17, 2008, 07:02 PM
Where's the outcry over the fact that Apple requires you to buy OSX Server in order to use it in a VM? Many, myself included, scoffed at the Vista Home and Vista Pro licenses specifically forbidding their use in a VM but so far I don't hear anybody complaining about not being able to use OSX (non-server) in a VM.

freiheit
Jan 17, 2008, 07:07 PM
Parallels and Fusion.

Which one is better? I hear fusion, am i right?

Better is a very relative word. As one who has run both, I can say they seem very similar. However I bought Parallels 2.5 last year, received a free upgrade to 3.0 and have seen a number of fairly significant, free, improvements since then. They still call it 3.0 but with the updated features released since then they really should call it 3.1.

Even though Parallels Desktop only supports one "virtual processor", I can play full screen video while simultaneously running a couple of downloads inside my VM with no problems on a 2.66GHz Mac Pro.

pavelbure
Jan 17, 2008, 07:25 PM
But for some reason I cannot get the apps (windows programs) to move from one edge of the monitor to the opposite edge of the second monitor while running in their Unity mode. Parallels had no issue with this. Does anyone have this happened to them?

that happens to me also and is very irritating.

ChrisA
Jan 17, 2008, 07:55 PM
Parallels and Fusion.

Which one is better? I hear fusion, am i right?

VMware has been in this business for years, long befor Apple switched to Intel. VMware's main product line runs on Linux and Windows. but their main customer base is people who run server rooms. Paralles only has the Mac desktop product, and this demo.

It you are a large outfit and have Macs, Linux and Windows boxes and run a server room then VMware is the way to go. If you have just a Mac, flip a coin

I have Linux and Windows and Mac. I can make a VM using Fusion and install say Win XP on it. Then I can copy the VM image to a USB disk drive and take it to work and run it on VMware's Linux product. With VMware your images are portable.

This should be popular with kids who want to take their whole game environment with them. Get Fusion put Windows on it and your games. then later take the image files to your freind's hous and run that fusion image on his Vista system using VMware's "player".

VMware's low-end products that are like "fusion" are free on Linux and Windows but they make us Mac users pay. So your Windows using freind would not have to buy anything to run your fusion image on his PC.

Parallels is "mac only" and there are not free versions.

That said, check out "QEMU". It is free, Open Source and does a little more then either VMware or Paralels but it lacks a marketing department and a slick installer. QEMU is kind of like a combination "VMware Fusion" and a "ultra-Roseta"
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/about.html

MacTheSpoon
Jan 17, 2008, 08:05 PM
I don't really get it; I know why it's useful to run Windows on your Mac, but can someone please explain why people would want to run a virtual OS X on a server? I am not server savvy. :D

powermac_daddy
Jan 17, 2008, 08:41 PM
many different answers. confused!

akac
Jan 17, 2008, 08:42 PM
Fusion wins for one reason: USB support. I can do ROM upgrades of devices and it works 100% of the time. I have clients who simply cannot print to their USB printers from any version of Parallels 100% of the time, yet Fusion works every time.

And that is the main reason I use Fusion.

digitalbiker
Jan 17, 2008, 09:30 PM
OS X server support is nice but.....

When the heck is vmware or parallels going to support dual monitors and/or a unity mode for Linux. It kills me to have to waste not using my 23" ACD monitor. It is a good thing that my first monitor is a 30" ACD.

BKKbill
Jan 17, 2008, 11:47 PM
I don't really get it; I know why it's useful to run Windows on your Mac, but can someone please explain why people would want to run a virtual OS X on a server? I am not server savvy. :D

Your not alone in not knowing the difference.

bplein
Jan 17, 2008, 11:59 PM
Take a look at the target market for ESX server and you won't ask "why run OSX Server in a virtual machine".

Enterprises (aka big datacenters) run servers as virtual machines for many reasons.


Servers typically run underutilized. They are "bursty".
If you run lots of servers, each of them at 20% utilization, you can gain efficiencies by consolidating into virtual machines and sharing CPU (and power!) resources
Fewer hardware servers means fewer ethernet and fibre channel ports (less dollars)
Consolidation into virtual machines equates to consolidation of storage assets. Another way to reduce stranded capacity


I work for a vendor of enterprise storage. These arguments play to the Fortune-1000/Global-1000 install base. If you use VMware (or parallels) purely as a desktop development (or play) environment, this doesn't apply. It works for big datacenters, though.

bplein
Jan 18, 2008, 12:10 AM
By the way, I've run both. As of the release of Fusion, VMware ran with less CPU utilization for an idle Windows XP desktop guest. That was a major selling point for me.

A cool feature of Parallels was the activity indicators for each of the virtual devices. This is something that VMware Server does for you, so I was surprised that VMware was deficient in this area. But that's a "nice to have" not a "gotta have". It fits with the Mac way of not having blinky lights for hard drives and Ethernet.

bobrik
Jan 18, 2008, 04:44 AM
Parallels is "mac only" and there are not free versions.

Not entirely true. While Parallels Desktop is for Mac only, they have more advanced product, called "Parallels Workstation", for $50 (and only for Windows & Linux). Have never heard of anyone using it on Windows or Linux though.

That said, check out "QEMU". It is free, Open Source and does a little more then either VMware or Paralels but it lacks a marketing department and a slick installer. QEMU is kind of like a combination "VMware Fusion" and a "ultra-Roseta"
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/about.html

Well, QEMU is great if you want to run operating system for other processor than what you have on your computer, say e.g., Linux for ARM processor on your Intel (or PowerPC) Mac, or Windows (for Intel) on your PowerPC Mac. Other than that, I think you should try VirtualBox (below) if you want a free virtualization on desktop.

VirtualBox is focused on virtualization, so it has user interface in essence similar to Parallels Desktop and VM Fusion - look at http://www.virtualbox.org/. For Mac OS X, it's currently in Beta, but looks promising for those not willing to spend money on virtualization software.

0racle
Jan 18, 2008, 11:01 AM
But for some reason I cannot get the apps (windows programs) to move from one edge of the monitor to the opposite edge of the second monitor while running in their Unity mode. Parallels had no issue with this. Does anyone have this happened to them?
It happens to everyone who tries it. Unity currently does not support multiple monitors. In Unity mode, Windows applications are 'stuck' on the monitor Fusion was running on when you changed modes.

Pierre Lefranc
Jan 20, 2008, 04:51 PM
awesome stuff! looks like Parallels is one step ahead right now though

I don't think so. As explained there (http://compfusion.blogspot.com/2008/01/true-leopard-server-virtualization.html), Parallels can only run Mac OS X Server in a VM, they cannot install it from the factory-sealed Apple DVD. VMware can do both and has almost complete virtual device support.