VMWare Fusion Beta

[YoNeX]

I just got an email from VMware about beta testing VMware for Mac. Can't seem to download the stuff because their store is having errors. Hopefully once I get to download it, I can give you guys some results.

[keltorsori]

Please keep us up-to-date. I've been waiting for VMware now for months.

[bucho]

Where's my email? :(

[kainjow]

Some more info here:

http://www.tuaw.com/2006/11/03/vmwares-fusion-begins-private-beta/

[YoNeX]

Okay, they fixed the Portal, so I was able to download it, a 79.4MB file, lets see how this runs compared to parallels.

[yg17]

Is this for Intel Macs only or will it work on PPC too?

[kainjow]

Okay, they fixed the Portal, so I was able to download it, a 79.4MB file, lets see how this runs compared to parallels.
Post screenshots if you can! :)

Is this for Intel Macs only or will it work on PPC too?

Intel Macs only. I'm pretty confident that anything involved with running Windows on a PPC Mac is dead by now :rolleyes:

[YoNeX]

This is what will get me switching to VMware vs Parallels, multicore support in virtualization!

[MacBoobsPro]

Where's my email? :(

Its in the post! :D

[kainjow]

This is what will get me switching to VMware vs Parallels, multicore support in virtualization!

That will work nicely on the Mac Pros. Keep us updated.

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

VMWare sent (http://www.vmware.com/) an email out for a private beta testing of Fusion, their upcoming virtualization product for Mac OS X.

Dear Beta Customer,

We are pleased to announce Fusion Friends and Family release. Fusion is the code name for the new VMware desktop product for Mac. You are part of a select group of users with the opportunity to experience this new and exciting product first hand.

TUAW posts (http://www.tuaw.com/2006/11/03/vmwares-fusion-begins-private-beta/) details from the private beta site. Notable features listed include:

• Ability to create and run a wide variety of x86 operating systems on OS X without rebooting.
• Access physical devices from the virtual machine. You can access physical devices such as CD ROM drives, video cameras, iPods, printers and high-speed disks from the virtual machine.
• Leverage Virtual SMP capabilities to gain additional performance improvement. You can assign more than a single CPU (on supported hardware with Intel Core Duo CPU) to gain additional performance for CPU-intensive workloads.
• Run over 300 virtual appliances: You can download any of the over 300 virtual appliances - preinstalled and preconfigured applications packaged with an operating system in a virtual machine - available from VMware's Technology Network. Setting up a wiki or blog server has never been easier.
Fusion supports all Intel Mac hardware, including the new 64-bit Mac Pro and iMac.

A screenshot of the beta VMWare Fusion application can be seen here (http://images.macrumors.com/article/fusion.png). A beta signup form (http://www.vmware.com/whatsnew/macsignupform.html) appears available, but the response is not immediate.

[YoNeX]

Here is another screenshot, go use your assumption skills of what these things will do. Apparently support for IR remote, iSight, etc. I don't have my Windows cd to install right now, but I will later tonight. Otherwise, I have to actually start doing some work =/. More updates later in the day.

[erockerboy]

Wow!

Sounds cool!

[spicyapple]

An entire cottage industry around virtualization it seems is slowly springing up... more support for OSX means this is great news for Apple marketshare! :)

[boxlight]

Will it support playing graphic intensive Windows games? That's the only think Parallels doesn't do for me. Also, is there any indication of a price?

Competition is always good, but they're going to have their work cut out for them to get me to switch away from Parallels.

boxlight

[justflie]

Does anyone have an idea of what (if anything) this does that Parallels doesn't? Parallels has done a great job and is really great except for the video acceleration. If someone could figure that out and let us play XP games in OS X I would be one happy guy.

[halse]

I signed up for this months ago, may have to do so again since I didn't get a reply yet, my guess is that Fusion will be (somewhat) better and (slightly) more expensive than Parallels

[mleary]

Is this for Intel Macs only or will it work on PPC too?

There is a PPC version but it will only run the PPC version of Windows.

[Eidorian]

There is a PPC version but it will only run the PPC version of Windows.NT 3.51? 4? LOL

All these VMWare features are really nice. Then again I bought Parallels for $29 + tax after rebate. Give me more features Parallels! :D

[djkirsten]

i have parallels and it works great for me except the whole video thing. i work a lot with video and so that is of course why i got a mac pro :D , but as a freelancer not everything is in final cut so i thought i'd install avid in parallels. well it doesn't think i have a video card and thus wont let me do anything :mad: so if vmware can do that then sign me up.

i also like the whole drag and drop idea, i dont know exactly if parallels can do that, i know you can share a folder, but i picture draging a file from my left monitor(s) to my full screen pc on my right monitor's desktop and it just popping up. that'd be neat but not enough for the switch from parallels.

this is good though because it'll make parallels step it up even more and we'll get some more features quicker.

[xPismo]

<Darth Vader voice> Impressive.... </voice>

Great to see another virtual machine app for osx/intel. I can't wait to get my hands on one and try all this new fun stuff out! I feel so left out.

...i'd install avid in parallels. ... more features quicker.

OMG! Avid in a virtual machine? I doubt, and I know I'm old and cranky, that Avid will ever work convincingly in a VM environment. Bootcamp hopefully one day.

[dr_lha]

Here is another screenshot, go use your assumption skills of what these things will do. Apparently support for IR remote, iSight, etc. I don't have my Windows cd to install right now, but I will later tonight. Otherwise, I have to actually start doing some work =/. More updates later in the day.

Looks like that toolbar is just listing USB devices to me. Doesn't mean any of those will actually work under VMWare. Is there a Windows driver for built in iSight or Apple IR?

[bigandy]

Oooh that looks better than Parallels. I like the connectivity stuff above too. :)

[slackersonly]

Oooh that looks better than Parallels. I like the connectivity stuff above too. :)

It will be interesting to see changes the parallels will make. competition is nice. unless you are microsoft...

[rgomez]

Multiprocessor support is way way cool. That could make me throw away my work machine and just keep working with my Mac Pro :-)

Well... another thing that stops me from working with virtual machines is the lack of support for multi-monitor setups... I can't return to developing software with just one... so let's hope VMWare addresses this sometime, hopefully soon. I would really love to have my Mac with 3 monitors instead of my Pc with 2 and my mac with one... :-)

Now I'm just waiting to get my invitation email... if it happens... :rolleyes:

[SeanMcg]

It will be interesting to see changes the parallels will make. competition is nice. unless you are microsoft...

..who won't let you legally (http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ultimate_English_9d10381d-6fa8-47c7-83b0-c53f722371fa.pdf) install a "Home" version of Vista in a virtual enviroment, forcing you to pay more for the Ultimate version.

[boxlight]

I bought Parallels for $29 + tax after rebate

What rebate? Please elaborate.



NT 3.51? 4? LOL

All these VMWare features are really nice. Then again I bought Parallels for $29 + tax after rebate. Give me more features Parallels! :D

[twoodcc]

too bad not everyone can get the beta

[Eidorian]

I bought Parallels for $29 + tax after rebate

What rebate? Please elaborate.CompUSA was having a sale on Parallels.

$79 - 10 instant - $20 mail-in = $49

(I made a mistake on my rebate the fist time.)

[kainjow]

Parallels just posted an update on their blog about USB 2 and 3D graphics:

Can you give us an update on USB 2.0 and 3D graphics?

We're still working on both and are still planning on including these in our next version of Parallels Worktation and Parallels Desktop. Beta launch for these products are still slated for around the turn of the year.

w00t for competition :D

[Eidorian]

Parallels just posted an update on their blog about USB 2 and 3D graphics:

w00t for competition :DSounds like another copy of Parallels to buy. :(

But yay! Competition.

[Edge100]

Multiprocessor support is way way cool. That could make me throw away my work machine and just keep working with my Mac Pro :-)

Well... another thing that stops me from working with virtual machines is the lack of support for multi-monitor setups... I can't return to developing software with just one... so let's hope VMWare addresses this sometime, hopefully soon. I would really love to have my Mac with 3 monitors instead of my Pc with 2 and my mac with one... :-)

Now I'm just waiting to get my invitation email... if it happens... :rolleyes:

Agreed. Multiprocessor support is critical. I do audio production, and this would be a nice way of incorporating Windows-only software into my rig (for compatibility with others). But in Parallels, having access to only one core means my iMac is too slow to handle complex projects.

[wkhahn]

Is this for Intel Macs only or will it work on PPC too?

I would have to think this would be for Intel Macs only.


Off topic; YG17, be sure to vote Tuesday!

[kainjow]

Fired up my copy of Knoppix 5 (don't ask). This thing is FAST. Makes Parallels look so slow, doesn't eat up as much memory. Issues so far is the 2-finger scrolling is off a little bit, and the trackpad right clicking is off a little bit. These are only preliminary results, I'll go more indepth later on. So take these results with a grain of salt, for now.

Loaded up 2 Folding@Home clients up to really burn this baby in.

From the screenshots alone, it looks like a Cocoa app, which pretty much guarantees it'll be faster because it won't have the extra Qt bloated code in it ;)

[jagolden]

Fired up my copy of Knoppix 5 (don't ask). This thing is FAST. Makes Parallels look so slow, doesn't eat up as much memory. Issues so far is the 2-finger scrolling is off a little bit, and the trackpad right clicking is off a little bit. These are only preliminary results, I'll go more indepth later on. So take these results with a grain of salt, for now.

Loaded up 2 Folding@Home clients up to really burn this baby in.

QUESTION: Can you just use a 2-3 button mouse instead of the trackpad and avoid the hassle? I'd hate t go back to keyboard or trackpad usage for day-to-day.

[sixth]

can someone post a link for DL? I would love to test this out...:-)

[Some_Big_Spoon]

Parallels has been great, and I'm tolerating CrossOver. I'd just like CrossOver to be faster and more power, plus easier to use. Windows is one bicycle this fish doesn't need.

[Object-X]

At least the interface looks like an OS X application. I've always hated Parallels mega cheesy Longhorn icon looking crappy interface.

The other thing I don't like about Parallels interface is the terrible or non-existant managment of multiple OSs. The VMWare screen shot doesn't show how this is done with that application, but it it is anything the PC version I'm sold.

I signed up for the beta, let's hope they let me in.

[Stella]

..who won't let you legally (http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ultimate_English_9d10381d-6fa8-47c7-83b0-c53f722371fa.pdf) install a "Home" version of Vista in a virtual enviroment, forcing you to pay more for the Ultimate version.

What microsoft don't know, won't hurt them.

I very much doubt whether vista could detect its running in a virtual environment.

[MBHockey]

In Fusion, can you have more than the measly 8MB of vram that Parallels gives you to work with in Windows?

CAD programs barely run with 8MB of vram.

[Am3822]

One of thie things I liked about VMWare for the PC was the fact that i could boot from a physical partition (as opposed to Parallel's virtual volume). Is this also the case for the OS X version -- in short, can we boot the 'bootcamp'ed partition from within os x?

[YoNeX]

A lot of the features are missing right now, the preference window only has 2 checkboxes. Just ran into a really nasty bug right now, still buggy.

There are no settings for VRam, seperate parition/drive, or even shared folders. This is defitantely not like the PC version (right now). But since its beta, more features will probably be added soon.

[astewart]

I can't wait to compare Parallels and WMWare Fusion.

I'm still waiting for an E-mail back from them too.

[Nermal]

At least the interface looks like an OS X application. I've always hated Parallels mega cheesy Longhorn icon looking crappy interface.

Indeed. I was appalled when Apple started promoting it!

[witness]

too bad not everyone can get the beta
I signed up for this the day that it was announced (quite a while back now), but no invite :( Perhaps I selected the wrong option (Developer) from the dropdown on the signup form.

Well I guess that it will come soon enough. Though from what I've seen it seems to be closer to VMWare Player than VMWare Workstation, which would be a little disappointing. It's the workstation features that are missing from Parallels, and why I've been so eagerly awaiting the arrival of VMWare's product.

[gerrycurl]

all i have to say is that vmware is a strong company financially with a very good long term vision/proven track record, there's no way parallels will survive. there's no way all the hardware companies will fully cooperate with parallels, i don't see them lasting, you're better off putting money in vmware, they'll give you a good product, they've been doing it longer and better. but i understand how it is with firsts, it's always hard to part with them. ;)

even though i didn't get an invite into the beta program, i'm shocked at how quick they're actually executing. that indian exec at vmware said it would be coming soon at the last wwdc, but this is great.

[graphite13]

For all those people who signed up for the beta.. I'm pretty sure this is a PRIVATE beta. VMware has said they'll do a public beta by the end of the year, and I'm pretty sure that'll be PUBLIC.

Basically, I'm sure that they're just ramping up to get some features in for the public beta, but wanted to test functionality and what not with this private beta. They've still got 2 months or so to hold up to that statement ("by the end of the year")

[MacsAttack]

all i have to say is that vmware is a strong company financially with a very good long term vision/proven track record, there's no way parallels will survive. there's no way all the hardware companies will fully cooperate with parallels, i don't see them lasting, you're better off putting money in vmware, they'll give you a good product, they've been doing it longer and better. but i understand how it is with firsts, it's always hard to part with them. ;)

even though i didn't get an invite into the beta program, i'm shocked at how quick they're actually executing. that indian exec at vmware said it would be coming soon at the last wwdc, but this is great.

Given that a number of VmWare's products are essentially free, Parallels will indeed have some significant challenges ahead if the OS X version is likewise free.

What I could use is the ability to use a VM created with VMWare's PC-based products on OS X (allowing me to use development VMs we use for developemnt and testing on my Mac too).

[slffl]

Wow, Drag-n-Drop between OSX and Windows. Awesome!!!

[wiraone]

Just ordered Parallels Desktop just now .. I'm more than eager to get a hand on the VMware too. I'm currently running VMware on my Linux machine ..

[graphite13]

Looks like that toolbar is just listing USB devices to me. Doesn't mean any of those will actually work under VMWare. Is there a Windows driver for built in iSight or Apple IR?

I don't know about the Apple IR, but supposedly the iSight Driver from the Bootcamp driver cd (burn the drivers using bootcamp) work splendidly, and allow you to use the iSight in a VM in VMware's app.

[wmmk]

the virtual appliance stuff will be great for people who host their own casual low-traffic blogs and such. i was doing that, but then i worried that someone would hack in and screw with important files. knowing that the server is in a virtual machine would make things a lot nicer.

[iJawn108]

:p Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


I can't wait! I signed up for the public beta.

[bankshot]

From the screenshots alone, it looks like a Cocoa app, which pretty much guarantees it'll be faster because it won't have the extra Qt bloated code in it ;)

Right, and Cocoa isn't the slightest bit bloated? :rolleyes: (can you say runtime messaging and binding overhead?)

Regardless of the relative difference in overhead, I'd expect it to be negligible in both cases. This is just the gui that sits around the virtual machine, a nice window dressing to make it accessible to the user. It should only be exercised when you're doing stuff like editing configurations or attaching devices. The real meat of either VMware or Parallels should have nothing to do with what gui toolkit they use to display the window.

It's exciting to see this finally moving along. I really think virtualization will play a much larger role in everyday computing in the future. Forget backwards compatibility nightmares, just virtualize it. I'm already hogging way too much disk space on my Macbook with a few Parallels VMs that I use on a regular basis. Whenever Apple releases an affordable desktop Mac that can take more than 4 GB of memory, I might check out VMware at that time and see if it's any better.

[kainjow]

Right, and Cocoa isn't the slightest bit bloated? :rolleyes: (can you say runtime messaging and binding overhead?)

I'm not saying that the actual virtualization should be done in Cocoa (ha yeah right), but the GUI definitely should. Parallels takes way too long to launch, and the GUI sucks.

Plus, do you really think a Qt C++ wrapper around Carbon is faster than direct Cocoa calls? :rolleyes:

I just want a nice documented-based Cocoa app that behaves like a Mac app, with a fast virtualization at its core :)

[bankshot]

Parallels takes way too long to launch, and the GUI sucks.

Mine pops up instantly. 2.0 GHz Macbook. What's wrong with the GUI? Is it just that it's not Cocoa, the holy grail, or is there something tangible that isn't good? I've found it easy to use and unobtrusive.

Plus, do you really think a Qt C++ wrapper around Carbon is faster than direct Cocoa calls? :rolleyes:

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if it were. Many of the things that make Cocoa such a joy for programmers also slow it down at runtime. That's just a design decision that Apple made, and with faster computers always coming out, it becomes less of a drawback at runtime.

I just want a nice documented-based Cocoa app that behaves like a Mac app, with a fast virtualization at its core :)

Err, why should a virtual machine be document-based? That doesn't make any sense to me.

The whole thing that drew my attention to your original post was that comment about Cocoa. Why do you, as an end-user, care about that? Cocoa is great, but there seems to be a mentality here that anything else is inferior or a second-class citizen. I kind of understand why that mentality came to be - Cocoa came with OS X, Carbon is a bridge to the past in OS 9. Thus people automatically assumed that Cocoa = good and Carbon = bad. But Carbon is every bit as capable as Cocoa, and thus why an end-user would care one bit about either is beyond me.

Granted, Parallels is done with Qt, which looks a little bit "off" sitting next to a Carbon or Cocoa app, but does that really matter? It looks damn close, and frankly, looks mean nothing to me if the interface works intuitively. And that it does.

I'm not picking on you, just trying to understand your reasoning. ;)

[graphite13]

The nicest thing about a Cocoa app is that it looks and behaves like every other Cocoa app. There is a sort of consistency in behavior. Things that look almost like a Cocoa app, but don't quite behave that way annoy me.

But what'll make VMware faster is the better support for multi-core processors and allowing the VM to take advantage of that.

[sixth]

Dont count Parallels out. They will eventually have multicore support in their app, and i am sure will keep getting better over time.

[graphite13]

Dont count Parallels out. They will eventually have multicore support in their app, and i am sure will keep getting better over time.

Oh, not counting them out at all. That would most certainly be a mistake. No, but VMware certainly brings a lot of history and man power to the table. They are THE elephant in the room when it comes to virtualization (they essentially pioneered the market that exists today).

I think they bring with them a long history of good, solid, stable roducts that the enterprise trusts.

[eightball0]

Check out the release notes here:

http://www.vmware.com/products/beta/fusion/releasenotes_fusion.html

For the squeamish who don't realize they're squeamish (the fearless/masochistic can ignore this):
Note that there's a reason this is a private beta. It's rough still. There are bugs that will freeze your Mac. That requires a hard power-off, and even though we have journaled HFS+, there's still the chance of corrupting the image.

In other words, don't use this unless you really know what you're getting into. Wait for the public beta unless you're experienced with rough software.

Otherwise, it looks like it will put up a good fight against Parallels. That's very useful, as I'd like them to add some of the features VMware has had for years (access to raw HD partitions, for example).

[eightball0]

There's a manual here:

http://www.vmware.com/products/beta/fusion/fusion_getting_started_100.pdf

The beta is probably floating around the Internets by now, if you know where to look. I can't confirm that directly, but these things do leak fast.

[SMM]

This is all very interesting and I can discern the excitement amongst you that have an immediate use for this technology. For me, I am looking forward to a full implementation of Wine, or similar product, which will eliminate the need to load the Windows OS before running Windows programs. I do believe this will truly set OSX free.

Does anyone know if any of the emulators will allow MS Sql Server to run on an Xserve platform? What about Exchange or other backoffice applications?

[Eidorian]

This is all very interesting and I can discern the excitement amongst you that have an immediate use for this technology. For me, I am looking forward to a full implementation of Wine, or similar product, which will eliminate the need to load the Windows OS before running Windows programs. I do believe this will truly set OSX free.

Does anyone know if any of the emulators will allow MS Sql Server to run on an Xserve platform? What about Exchange or other backoffice applications?
Elegant post but sheesh!

http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/

There's a manual here:

http://www.vmware.com/products/beta/fusion/fusion_getting_started_100.pdf

The beta is probably floating around the Internets by now, if you know where to look. I can't confirm that directly, but these things do leak fast.Yeah it already is.

[Musubi]

Dont count Parallels out. They will eventually have multicore support in their app, and i am sure will keep getting better over time.
The single core support currently is a design decision. Per a note by Andrew (of Parallels) (http://forums.parallels.com/thread5395.html), "One core is used by Mac OS X and the other core is used by Windows XP - it brings excellent resource management and optimal performance for both systems running simultaneously."

Thus it can be presumed they may end up allowing multicore as an option in future releases.

The good thing about having two companies in this space is the competition will result in two better Mac products. I've just finished installing XP Pro on Fusion but the beta test agreement has a note about confidentiality regarding the discussion of benchmarks/performance data of the beta. Upon starting a VM, a sheet drops down noting there is debug code and logging which affects its performance. Thus, comparing it's current performance against Parallels isn't fair game at this time. Outside of that, the user interface is a bit more spartan (not much configuration options including the ability to tweak an already created VM) than Parallels. The VM setup while not much different than Parallels Desktop feels more streamlined. Fusion also drops down sheets with plenty of information to help make the setup process idiotproof (all of those dialogues can be turned off by checking the provided box).

[AHDuke99]

how do you use a physical partition with vmware? i'd love to se my bootcamp with VMware ..

[fisty]

Elegant post but sheesh!

http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/

Yeah it already is.

indeed it has :D

just created iso image from the xp sp2 cd i have lieing around.. never seen xp installing so fast lol

tho still a bit bumpy as its a private beta...no **** its bumpy lol

[Westside guy]

Given that a number of VmWare's products are essentially free, Parallels will indeed have some significant challenges ahead if the OS X version is likewise free.

I don't think this is a realistic hope. The equivalent Windows/Linux app is VMware Workstation, which is definitely not free.

VMware's free apps can certainly be used on a workstation; but they're targeting the server space and lack some of the niceties of Workstation (such as experimental hardware video acceleration). But I do use the free VMware Server on a Fedora box for generic Windows stuff like IE testing, and it fits that bill just fine.

I would think it likely that VMware's pricing will have to be somewhat competitive with Parallels - people aren't going to spend $180 on it unless it totally blows Parallels out of the water (which would be hard to do).

[ug.mac]

Well. I have to say Bravo! VMWare!!!!
It use SOOOOOOO little amount of memory compare to Parallels (4xxMB vs 2.xxGB), so there is better system performance. I cannot wait to test it on my Macbook but the different on my Mac Pro was HUGE!!

[fisty]

i just finished installing xp sp2 on vmware works fine....

just under device manager it tells me one unregonised hardware....the video card... any1 knows how to solve this?
or is it part of the game

[ug.mac]

i just finished installing xp sp2 on vmware works fine....

just under device manager it tells me one unregonised hardware....the video card... any1 knows how to solve this?
or is it part of the game

You need to install VMware tools from Virtual Machine menu.

[fisty]

You need to install VMware tools from Virtual Machine menu.

yeh just noticed myself...silly me :P

[SiliconAddict]

VMWare is going to smoke Parallels when it comes out. I can’t wait. I'm still a little bit miffed though that no one has gotten native partition support so we can use the same partition while virtualizing or dual booting.

[SiliconAddict]

Mine pops up instantly. 2.0 GHz Macbook.


Whatever dude. 2Ghz\2GB RAM\256MB Video\160GB HD and there is NOTHING instantaneous about Parallels at all. It takes anywhere from 1-2 minutes to resume a session and another 2+ minutes to suspend it. This is with multiple images, several OS X installs, and I know how to tweak Windows with the best of them. Then there is the bug where it likes to freeze the entire system when you change locations. Not always but it’s a common enough thing that I have to stop the session to change locations or risk crashing my system.

[poppe]

Ok so here's the newb question of the day!!

Have to buy Windows correct regardless of Parallels or VMware?

[YoNeX]

Ok so here's the newb question of the day!!

Have to buy Windows correct regardless of Parallels or VMware?

Yes.

As for some results, I really can't post performance results, but I can say that this competition in the virtualization market is good and we should be getting an excellent product for VMware (hopefully, if they give us a more of a workstation than a player).

[akac]

Whatever dude. 2Ghz\2GB RAM\256MB Video\160GB HD and there is NOTHING instantaneous about Parallels at all. It takes anywhere from 1-2 minutes to resume a session and another 2+ minutes to suspend it. This is with multiple images, several OS X installs, and I know how to tweak Windows with the best of them.

Sounds like you're not talking about Parallels starting up, but a virtual machine either resuming or starting up from scratch. For me WinXP starts in about 15 seconds on a 2.16Ghz 2GB RAM or about 2 minutes if resuming. But that has NOTHING to do with Cocoa, QT, Carbon or what not. The difference between those frameworks in speed is in milliseconds and would have nothing to do with the above. Those would have everything to do with file writing to disk.

I can say that when Parallels has its VM Flags set to VM Cache as the primary caching logic, its disk speed is near native, but OS X apps slow down dramatically. Change that to Mac OS X primary caching logic and the VM's disk access slows down noticeably, but not horribly.

[akac]

I should add that this is the one reason I'm interested in VMWare - native disk speed. I can partition my disk to XP and Mac ala Bootcamp and have VMWare use the partition natively for disk access.

[Marx55]

I can say that when Parallels has its VM Flags set to VM Cache as the primary caching logic, its disk speed is near native, but OS X apps slow down dramatically. Change that to Mac OS X primary caching logic and the VM's disk access slows down noticeably, but not horribly.

How to do such changes? Thanks.

[Marx55]

VMWare is going to smoke Parallels when it comes out. I can’t wait. I'm still a little bit miffed though that no one has gotten native partition support so we can use the same partition while virtualizing or dual booting.

That native partion support to use virtualization or dual booting would be awesome, having the best of both worlds (Boot Camp & Virtualization). I look forward to it!

[MacVault]

That native partion support to use virtualization or dual booting would be awesome, having the best of both worlds (Boot Camp & Virtualization). I look forward to it!

YES! That would be sweeeeet!

[br0adband]

Whatever dude. 2Ghz\2GB RAM\256MB Video\160GB HD and there is NOTHING instantaneous about Parallels at all. It takes anywhere from 1-2 minutes to resume a session and another 2+ minutes to suspend it. This is with multiple images, several OS X installs, and I know how to tweak Windows with the best of them. Then there is the bug where it likes to freeze the entire system when you change locations. Not always but it’s a common enough thing that I have to stop the session to change locations or risk crashing my system.

If it's taking you two minutes to resume a session and two minutes plus to suspend it, on that machine you mentioned the specs of, something is frickin' wrong with that machine.

2.16 Core 2 Duo 20" iMac here, 2GB, stock 250GB drive, Parallels does the following:

- it cold starts in 4 seconds
- it boots my XP VM (512MB of RAM/8GB virtual hard disk) to the Desktop in 9
- it suspended that same XP VM in 14
- it restored that same XP VM in 11

And that's with Crossover for Mac running several Windows apps in the background too, so some of my resources are already drained when I fired up Parallels and the VM. Memory usage at the moment for the entire machine is sitting at 1154MB of 2048MB, 69 tasks, 330 threads as measured by MenuMeters.

So, give that box a tuneup or whatever, because you're certainly not getting the performance from Parallels that you should be getting. Also, check your VT-x flags under Parallels to make sure it's functioning properly.

btw, this is Parallels build 1970, the latest and greatest, and I've had nothing but positive usage of Parallels since I bought it off the shelf in an Apple Store along with this iMac a month ago. 3 upgrades so far, no issues at all.

bb

[strange days]

...guys, I was wondering...

Does BOOT CAMP already support DUAL-CORE under XP ?

Sorry for the ignorance, just bought me a new Macbook and going to install either PARALLELS or BOOT CAMP ( waiting for VMWARE... :p )

Thanks for feedback !=)

[myamid]

...guys, I was wondering...

Does BOOT CAMP already support DUAL-CORE under XP ?

Sorry for the ignorance, just bought me a new Macbook and going to install either PARALLELS or BOOT CAMP ( waiting for VMWARE... :p )

Thanks for feedback !=)

Yes, BootCamp uses the hardware natively, so that means dual-core support. As to whether you should use bootcamp or Parallels... Well I guess that ultimatly depends on what you need windows for... 3D games or REALLY CPU untensive App? Go for bootcamp. Otherwise, parallels does the trick nicely and doesn't require you to reboot (a BIG bonus for me...)

[myamid]

If it's taking you two minutes to resume a session and two minutes plus to suspend it, on that machine you mentioned the specs of, something is frickin' wrong with that machine.

2.16 Core 2 Duo 20" iMac here, 2GB, stock 250GB drive, Parallels does the following:

- it cold starts in 4 seconds
- it boots my XP VM (512MB of RAM/8GB virtual hard disk) to the Desktop in 9
- it suspended that same XP VM in 14
- it restored that same XP VM in 11

And that's with Crossover for Mac running several Windows apps in the background too, so some of my resources are already drained when I fired up Parallels and the VM. Memory usage at the moment for the entire machine is sitting at 1154MB of 2048MB, 69 tasks, 330 threads as measured by MenuMeters.

So, give that box a tuneup or whatever, because you're certainly not getting the performance from Parallels that you should be getting. Also, check your VT-x flags under Parallels to make sure it's functioning properly.

btw, this is Parallels build 1970, the latest and greatest, and I've had nothing but positive usage of Parallels since I bought it off the shelf in an Apple Store along with this iMac a month ago. 3 upgrades so far, no issues at all.

bb

I get similar performance on my slighly slower iMac.... And my VM images are on a less than ideal external FW drive!!! I'll second the opinion that if your system is significatly slower than this with Parallels, there's something VERY wrong with your Mac...

[DJRizzo]

Will it support playing graphic intensive Windows games? That's the only think Parallels doesn't do for me.
boxlight

In general you won't want to use any kind of virtualization solution for something processor & video intense like this. You'll want to just use boot camp.

[DJRizzo]

I just got an email from VMware about beta testing VMware for Mac. Can't seem to download the stuff because their store is having errors. Hopefully once I get to download it, I can give you guys some results.

I'm on a PPC but plan to go MacTel next year when Adobe releases Universal versions of Creative Suite. I have some questions about VMware & Parallels if you don't mind me adding it to the thread:

1. Do they require Windows partitions, and if so how much disk space is needed?

2. If a partition is needed, can you run the partition on an external drive so as to free up space on your internal? (I'll be using a MacBook Pro so that's why I ask).

3. Can anyone tell me anything about syncing a Palm device with Parallels or VMware? In particular I'm wondering how easily (if at all) I could sync my Treo with Windows apps as well as OS X apps. This would be huge to me.

thx.

[hob]

Maybe I need more RAM, but I was dissapointed to be reminded of Virtual PC, the way it totally slows the rest of my Mac down...
http://static.flickr.com/118/288535502_996a0fc6b1.jpg (http://static.flickr.com/118/288535502_996a0fc6b1_o.jpg)
[click for bigger image]

[kainjow]

Well. I have to say Bravo! VMWare!!!!
It use SOOOOOOO little amount of memory compare to Parallels (4xxMB vs 2.xxGB), so there is better system performance. I cannot wait to test it on my Macbook but the different on my Mac Pro was HUGE!!

I agree. VMware is already very good for a private beta (don't ask me how I got it ;)). Very fast already, and the app itself starts up about 5x faster than Parallels. And it uses a Cocoa native interface yay!

[YoNeX]

I'm on a PPC but plan to go MacTel next year when Adobe releases Universal versions of Creative Suite. I have some questions about VMware & Parallels if you don't mind me adding it to the thread:

1. Do they require Windows partitions, and if so how much disk space is needed?

2. If a partition is needed, can you run the partition on an external drive so as to free up space on your internal? (I'll be using a MacBook Pro so that's why I ask).

3. Can anyone tell me anything about syncing a Palm device with Parallels or VMware? In particular I'm wondering how easily (if at all) I could sync my Treo with Windows apps as well as OS X apps. This would be huge to me.

thx.

1. Currently VMware fusion only allows you to do to create a VMware image. This acts as like a virtual hard drive, so you would then have to partition accordingly. There is a network install, but VMware has not enabled the feature (to my knowledge).

2. See above

3. You should be able to sync with it, because like Parallels and VMware it allows you to connect it to the XP just by checking a tab to tell it to connect to it. So no issues here.

The main feature it is lacking for me right now is the shared folder. This would be very uself for some of the stuff that I would be doing.

[iHateWindows]

Maybe I need more RAM, but I was dissapointed to be reminded of Virtual PC, the way it totally slows the rest of my Mac down...
http://static.flickr.com/118/288535502_996a0fc6b1.jpg (http://static.flickr.com/118/288535502_996a0fc6b1_o.jpg)
[click for bigger image]

Take into consideration that you're running a beta OS on beta software. Both Fusion and Vista will get faster and more bug-free over time.

[ChrisA]

I use "VMWare Server" It runs on both Windows and Linux. Here is how it works: First I bring up a console window. THen I "connect" to a physical machine. Either the one I'm using or some other one on the network. Then I can "Power On" a Virtual machine. On power on I see the BIOS counting up memory and then booting off the boot device and finally it loads an OS. What this means, it that you have a set on physical machines and a set of virtual machines and the virtual machines can run on any of the physical machines and can eve be moved around. And all the displays are sent back to you workstation where you can tab between them. Another neat feature is the abilty to "snapshot" a VM. You ckick on "snapshoot" before you do something you might regret say you want to install some spyware thing just to see what it does. OK now you've seen it so you click "restore" and the computer is put back into the state of when it was snapshoted.

VMWare pioneered this whole ideal and has by for the best products. And so of them are free. If you have a Windows or Linux system go get VMware Server right now.

[YoNeX]

I used VMware workstation for Windows, that thing was awesome. Let me test so much stuff, and the features are so useful. That thing was slow, but it worked just fine. Now, if they released something like that for Mac, Parallels will have some stiff competition. But Parallels should still beat VMware in the price point, VMware isn't that cheap after all.

[ChrisA]

Maybe I need more RAM, but I was dissapointed to be reminded of Virtual PC, the way it totally slows the rest of my Mac down...

If you are going to run two operating systems then your computer needs to have the resources for the sum of the two systems. So if Mac OSX needs 1GB to run well and so does Windows XP then you need 2GB of ram. Same for the CPU. If a 2Ghz is needed for Windows and a 2Ghz chip for MacOS then you need either a 4Ghz chip or a two core 2Ghz chip. You don't get anything for free. If you want to run two computers you need twice the hardware.

I'll bet this runs great on a Mac Pro

[Transeau]

So far, I can tell you it runs MUCH better than Paralles on my Mac Pro.

[ChrisA]

I'm on a PPC but plan to go MacTel next year when Adobe releases Universal versions of Creative Suite. I have some questions about VMware & Parallels if you don't mind me adding it to the thread:

1. Do they require Windows partitions, and if so how much disk space is needed?

2. If a partition is needed, can you run the partition on an external drive so as to free up space on your internal? (I'll be using a MacBook Pro so that's why I ask).

3. Can anyone tell me anything about syncing a Palm device with Parallels or VMware? In particular I'm wondering how easily (if at all) I could sync my Treo with Windows apps as well as OS X apps. This would be huge to me.

thx.

1) Not a partition. The virtual Windows disk lives inside a file on the mac. If your Windows C: drive was 18GB stored on it the Mac OSX file will be 18GB.

OK with the current VMware produts you can use a real Windows partition if you want. Same with the Windws CD drive. You can map them to the real CD drive or to a disk image file. The default is to map the CD to the real CD and the C: disk to a disk image file (but you could map C: to a real disk if you want)


2) The file holding the virtual disk can be anyplace, even on a network drive but speed is an issue

[SiliconAddict]

If it's taking you two minutes to resume a session and two minutes plus to suspend it, on that machine you mentioned the specs of, something is frickin' wrong with that machine.

2.16 Core 2 Duo 20" iMac here, 2GB, stock 250GB drive, Parallels does the following:

- it cold starts in 4 seconds
- it boots my XP VM (512MB of RAM/8GB virtual hard disk) to the Desktop in 9
- it suspended that same XP VM in 14
- it restored that same XP VM in 11

And that's with Crossover for Mac running several Windows apps in the background too, so some of my resources are already drained when I fired up Parallels and the VM. Memory usage at the moment for the entire machine is sitting at 1154MB of 2048MB, 69 tasks, 330 threads as measured by MenuMeters.

So, give that box a tuneup or whatever, because you're certainly not getting the performance from Parallels that you should be getting. Also, check your VT-x flags under Parallels to make sure it's functioning properly.

btw, this is Parallels build 1970, the latest and greatest, and I've had nothing but positive usage of Parallels since I bought it off the shelf in an Apple Store along with this iMac a month ago. 3 upgrades so far, no issues at all.

bb

I've reinstalled OS X twice in the last 9 months. The latest being about 3 weeks ago when I upgraded to a 160GB hard drive. There is nothing wrong with my computer. (OK there is something wrong with its sleeping mech but that has nothing to do with performance.)
Parallels just sucks. Also I’m willing to bet the more you use the disk image and Windows the more parallels slows down. I’ve got a 14GB disk image, a ton of apps loaded, along with being in it every day for 8+ hours, USB peripherals all over the place, network settings for home and work, firewall enabled along with antivirus software. (I can’t use Office 2003 with SAP in OS X.) I probably use it more extensively then most Mac users. The simple fact is the reason why I keep reinstalling the demo instead of outright buying it is because I’m waiting on VMWare’s solution. VMWare is THE industry’s Microsoft when it comes to virtualizing. Just without the whole evilness thing. I’ve used Parallels extensively. I’m not impressed.

[YoNeX]

I've reinstalled OS X twice in the last 9 months. The latest being about 3 weeks ago when I upgraded to a 160GB hard drive. There is nothing wrong with my computer. (OK there is something wrong with its sleeping mech but that has nothing to do with performance.)
Parallels just sucks. Also I’m willing to bet the more you use the disk image and Windows the more parallels slows down. I’ve got a 14GB disk image, a ton of apps loaded, along with being in it every day for 8+ hours, USB peripherals all over the place, network settings for home and work, firewall enabled along with antivirus software. (I can’t use Office 2003 with SAP in OS X.) I probably use it more extensively then most Mac users. The simple fact is the reason why I keep reinstalling the demo instead of outright buying it is because I’m waiting on VMWare’s solution. VMWare is THE industry’s Microsoft when it comes to virtualizing. Just without the whole evilness thing. I’ve used Parallels extensively. I’m not impressed.

Guess I wasn't alone when I thought Parallels is slow.

[shawnce]

Parallels just sucks. Weird on my MacBook Pro and Mac Pro Parallels works great running WinXP Pro. I use it to do heavy development work and testing... it actually runs noticeably faster then my Dell desktop (P4 3GHz).

[dailo]

I get similar performance on my slighly slower iMac.... And my VM images are on a less than ideal external FW drive!!! I'll second the opinion that if your system is significatly slower than this with Parallels, there's something VERY wrong with your Mac...

Do you have any certain settings set? Because I have a 2.16 MBP with 2GB of memory and it takes like 40 seconds to suspend and resume. I'm not getting anywhere near the few seconds you guys are talking about.

[akac]

How to do such changes? Thanks.

Edit the VM. Go to VM Flags page and choose the cache policy.

[shawnce]

Do you have any certain settings set? Because I have a 2.16 MBP with 2GB of memory and it takes like 40 seconds to suspend and resume. I'm not getting anywhere near the few seconds you guys are talking about.

How big is the memory configured for the VM you are suspending?

[dailo]

How big is the memory configured for the VM you are suspending?

I have a WinXP VM with 512MB set to it. I have my cache policy set to the VM.

[astewart]

I can't seem to get the VMWare Tools to install after the "Guest" OS has loaded. I select "Install VMWare Tools" from the Menubar but nothing happens.
Is anyone else experiencing the same problem?

[IscariotJ]

Guess I wasn't alone when I thought Parallels is slow.

Hmmm, and I thought it was down to me running it on a MacBook ( 2Ghz,2GB ). For the money I paid for it, it's a useful ( but not great ) product. However, I've found the support to be abysmal, and that's as important to me, as how it runs.

I've only had a quick scan of this thread, but does anyone with a C2D based machine have it running? Any problems? ( thinking of Parallels C2D debacle, here ).

[ChrisA]

I can't seem to get the VMWare Tools to install after the "Guest" OS has loaded. I select "Install VMWare Tools" from the Menubar but nothing happens.
Is anyone else experiencing the same problem?

The "Install VMWare Tools" botton is miss labled. It does not install them. What it does is replace your CDROM with an image file. Try thse steps:

1) click "Install VMWare Tools"

2) Go inside your guest OS and look at the CDROM drive.

3) From Inside the OS install what you find on the CDROM.

4) Re-boot the guest OS.

[benjags]

Maybe I need more RAM, but I was dissapointed to be reminded of Virtual PC, the way it totally slows the rest of my Mac down...
http://static.flickr.com/118/288535502_996a0fc6b1.jpg (http://static.flickr.com/118/288535502_996a0fc6b1_o.jpg)
[click for bigger image]

kinda off topic, but i really think Vista looks a lot better without all the "aero transparency thing" making the windows titles a little too much unreadable...

[br0adband]

I've reinstalled OS X twice in the last 9 months. The latest being about 3 weeks ago when I upgraded to a 160GB hard drive. There is nothing wrong with my computer. (OK there is something wrong with its sleeping mech but that has nothing to do with performance.)
Parallels just sucks. Also I’m willing to bet the more you use the disk image and Windows the more parallels slows down. I’ve got a 14GB disk image, a ton of apps loaded, along with being in it every day for 8+ hours, USB peripherals all over the place, network settings for home and work, firewall enabled along with antivirus software. (I can’t use Office 2003 with SAP in OS X.) I probably use it more extensively then most Mac users. The simple fact is the reason why I keep reinstalling the demo instead of outright buying it is because I’m waiting on VMWare’s solution. VMWare is THE industry’s Microsoft when it comes to virtualizing. Just without the whole evilness thing. I’ve used Parallels extensively. I’m not impressed.

So let me get this straight: You keep reinstalling the demo of Parallels, thereby ripping off the company and not supporting it to make it the best product it can be and keep the company in business, and then you have the gall to come out in public and say as such, and then on top of that you have the even greater gall to say it sucks?

Oh yeah, your opinions mean a lot to us now, that's for sure.

Not.

I'll reiterate: something is wrong with your computer, and now I can see why.

bb

[br0adband]

Hmmm, and I thought it was down to me running it on a MacBook ( 2Ghz,2GB ). For the money I paid for it, it's a useful ( but not great ) product. However, I've found the support to be abysmal, and that's as important to me, as how it runs.

I've only had a quick scan of this thread, but does anyone with a C2D based machine have it running? Any problems? ( thinking of Parallels C2D debacle, here ).

I have a 20" iMac Core 2 Duo with 2GB and the stock 250GB hard drive. I'm running Parallels 24/7 with XP on a second 20" LCD monitor - OSX on the left on the iMac itself, XP on the right with the second LCD dedicated to running XP fullscreen.

I've rebooted twice in 3 weeks just because some software on the OSX side required a reboot.

To be honest, I've had more application crashes and restarts on OSX than I have under XP/Windows in the past 3 years. So much for "crash resistant" - and yes, I've had 4 kernel panics since I got this iMac home; that's more than the number of BSODs I've had under XP in 4 years.

So, in the next day or so I'll be doing the following test batch and making a thread here for the results:

- I'll be installing Parallels build 1970 clean
- I'll be installing the current beta build of VMWare Fusion clean
- I'll be installing XP SP2 *only* in default VMs under each of those two applications
- I will not be updating the SP2 at all, in fact neither VM will have Internet access to keep that aspect out of the testing
- I will install Windows Media Player 10 and Windows Media Encoder 9 as supplied by Microsoft for testing (see the next step)
- I will be installing PCMark05 from Futuremark into each VM for comprehensive testing under both applications (WMP10 and WME9 are required components of PCMark05, hence me installing them in the prior step)

I will then run the default benchmark in PCMark05 with the following stipulations:

- a cold boot of the iMac in between each testing session to ensure the most system resources possible for each VM when it's initialized
- the startup of each app and each VM will be timed by me with a watch - ok, it's not perfect but it's all I can do
- all 3D testing and graphics tests for 3D functionality will be skipped since neither Parallels nor VMWare Fusion has any 3D support at all
- I will do two runs with VMWare Fusion: one run with 1 processor support, then one run with 2 processor support

After all this is done I'll compile the data and make a thread here about the performance between and across both virtualization platforms.

In preliminary testing I did a short time ago, Parallels 1970 stomped VMWare Fusion into the ground by a wide margin - 37% higher score. But that was the first preliminary run as I just said, with other stuff running in the background (iTunes, DETOX, Toast, TextEdit, and Crossover with mIRC running for my IRC duties).

I'm not out to prove anything here, just offering up some actual performance data.

So far I'm happy with my Parallels purchase and haven't had a single problem with it. Hopefully this batch of testing will help people make a choice for the future - and yes, I'm well aware that VMWare is in beta testing and that VMWare has been around for a long long time. That's not the issue at present - the issue is which is better for the moment as both are in a continual state of development.

bb

[YoNeX]

(c) Restrictions. Licensee shall not copy or use the Beta Software (including the Documentation) except as expressly permitted in this Agreement. Licensee will not, and will not permit any third party to, sublicense, rent, copy, modify, create derivative works of, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise reduce to human perceivable form any portion of the Beta Software or accompanying Documentation. In no event shall Licensee use the Beta Software for Licensee’s product development or any other commercial purpose. The Beta Software and all performance data and test results, including without limitation, benchmark test results (collectively “Performance Data”), relating to the Beta Software are the Confidential Information of VMware, and will be treated in accordance with the terms of Section 4 of this Agreement. Accordingly, Licensee shall not publish or disclose to any third party any Performance Data relating to the Beta Software.

So yeah.

[kainjow]

Oh yeah, your opinions mean a lot to us now, that's for sure.

Not.

Did you just watch Borat? :D

[astewart]

The "Install VMWare Tools" botton is miss labled. It does not install them. What it does is replace your CDROM with an image file. Try thse steps:

1) click "Install VMWare Tools"

2) Go inside your guest OS and look at the CDROM drive.

3) From Inside the OS install what you find on the CDROM.

4) Re-boot the guest OS.

Thanks Chris,
What the problem was is that I had installed WindowsXP from and .iso image, so after the installation and everything was up and running, the D Drive "D:\" was still that .iso. I had to change the D drive to the actual DVD-ROM and the restart. Once that was done I had no problems installing the VMWare Tools.

:o

[SiliconAddict]

So let me get this straight: You keep reinstalling the demo of Parallels, thereby ripping off the company and not supporting it to make it the best product it can be and keep the company in business, and then you have the gall to come out in public and say as such, and then on top of that you have the even greater gall to say it sucks?

Oh yeah, your opinions mean a lot to us now, that's for sure.

Not.

I'll reiterate: something is wrong with your computer, and now I can see why.

bb


No I've been waiting for VM to get their butt in gear to launch Workstation. Parallels was simply a work around, a crappy one at that, until I could get VMWare. There is simply no way in heck I'm spending $80 on a piece of software that can crash my system. And before someone tells me to use Bootcamp. Yah right. Advanced Power Management does not work right under Bootcamp even with the latest version. When Parallels starts making a product that
1. Doesn't crash\freeze my system
2. Doesn't require me to force quite the application once every couple of weeks because the progress bar when I'm suspending a session has stalled.
3. Doesn't have sharing between folders that takes a good 5 seconds to parse the files and doesn't drop a file mapping in your file explorer.
4. Doesn't have the world's crappiest networking passthrough. I can't count how many times I've gone from one network to another to another and had it get confused telling me I might have limited network connectivity. So I need to repair the connection.

Parallels sucks but until now its been the only REAL game in town. Boo hoo I'm not paying for an app that IMHO is half baked to begin with. :rolleyes: At least I'm not outright going in search of a seral number and pirating the thing. Again its a tide me over until VM gets their butt in gear and releases this thing.

[inmotion]

so i just installed vmware... and ive got to say... its really not up to par with parallels... its sluggish on my MBP 2.0ghz with 2gigs of ram.... and i mean real sluggish... rebooting doesnt seem to want to work.... i do like the interface though but overall, its not that great to work with compare to parallels.... i do realize that this is a private beta but even in the beta stage parallels was much better.....
hope that the next build is more promising

also... i didnt see a way to change the amount of ram dedicated to the virtual machine other then by creating a new vm....

[graphite13]

i do realize that this is a private beta but even in the beta stage parallels was much better.....

Um... this is a private beta for a reason. Also, none of the Parallel's beta builds were built with debug symbols on and they were meant for public release.

Um, as a "private beta" it might be considered a "public alpha". I'm sure they're just making sure that things work before the public beta...

[jeeb75]

Has anybody been able to install Vista in vmware fusion. I installed it but I had trouble installing the vmware installation tools.

[astewart]

so i just installed vmware... and ive got to say... its really not up to par with parallels... its sluggish on my MBP 2.0ghz with 2gigs of ram.... and i mean real sluggish... rebooting doesnt seem to want to work.... i do like the interface though but overall, its not that great to work with compare to parallels.... i do realize that this is a private beta but even in the beta stage parallels was much better.....
hope that the next build is more promising

also... i didnt see a way to change the amount of ram dedicated to the virtual machine other then by creating a new vm....

I have to agree, the Video Refresh rate is also noticable compared from Parallels. The Mouse is more sluggish and it just doesn't give you the feel that Parallels does.
I didn't notice any difference from running 2 Cores either :(

It is only a Beta right now so maybe they will have everything up to par soon enough. :)

[inmotion]

so i decided to try to reinstall windows on vmware this time giving it 1gig of ram to work with.... and surprisingly enough, parallels with 512mb of ram still felt smoother and snappier....
i hope that vmware reads these :rolleyes:
cuz i decided to uninstall vmware and stick with parallels for now... the latest build runs really really well for me

ps: i also note that not a lot of people on the forum seem interested in this topic... (and instead go for threads like RUMOR! C2D MACBOOK, NEXT TUESDAY (OR THE ONE AFTER, OR AFTER! :D )

[YoNeX]

They want screenshots and numbers, but since the EULA says we cannot disclose numbers, not much left but screenshots. Oh and for the record, I was not able to get my XP to install properly. Tried about 3x. As for my choice, Parallels for stability, but VMware for the multi-core support. I'll leave it at that.

[dropadrop]

I've reinstalled OS X twice in the last 9 months. The latest being about 3 weeks ago when I upgraded to a 160GB hard drive. There is nothing wrong with my computer. (OK there is something wrong with its sleeping mech but that has nothing to do with performance.)
Parallels just sucks. Also I’m willing to bet the more you use the disk image and Windows the more parallels slows down. I’ve got a 14GB disk image, a ton of apps loaded, along with being in it every day for 8+ hours, USB peripherals all over the place, network settings for home and work, firewall enabled along with antivirus software. (I can’t use Office 2003 with SAP in OS X.) I probably use it more extensively then most Mac users. The simple fact is the reason why I keep reinstalling the demo instead of outright buying it is because I’m waiting on VMWare’s solution. VMWare is THE industry’s Microsoft when it comes to virtualizing. Just without the whole evilness thing. I’ve used Parallels extensively. I’m not impressed.

Could it be that you re using Filevault to encrypt your hardisk? Parallels really messes up my Macbook Pro if I try to use it in conjunction with filevault. I've gone around the problem by moving my virtual machines to a non-encrypted folder.

I don't get close to the performance those guys are talking about with my notebook. Resuming and suspending seem to take about 30 seconds, but I guess my hardisk is slow.

[dropadrop]

I have to agree, the Video Refresh rate is also noticable compared from Parallels. The Mouse is more sluggish and it just doesn't give you the feel that Parallels does.
I didn't notice any difference from running 2 Cores either :(

It is only a Beta right now so maybe they will have everything up to par soon enough. :)

Atleast on their server products the Beta releases have very heavy debugging and logging running on the background non-stop. There is no way to turn it off (atleast simple way). The final release has better performance due to this...

This can also be why they don't want performance comparisons, as it won't be indicative of the final product.

I have alot of trust in VMWare. Don't know what the pricing will be, but I am 100% sure that by release it will be an extremly robust product with only a very small overhead (I consider Parallels to have a fairly large overhead). I use most of VmWares server products at work, and can't remember any of the (release) versions ever failing me. With this I'm talking about running around 40 virtual production servers 24x7 on 3 servers with only 2 service breaks per server during the last year (planned maintainance breaks for upgrades).

[AndyR]

No I've been waiting for VM to get their butt in gear to launch Workstation. Parallels was simply a work around, a crappy one at that, until I could get VMWare. There is simply no way in heck I'm spending $80 on a piece of software that can crash my system. And before someone tells me to use Bootcamp. Yah right. Advanced Power Management does not work right under Bootcamp even with the latest version. When Parallels starts making a product that
1. Doesn't crash\freeze my system
2. Doesn't require me to force quite the application once every couple of weeks because the progress bar when I'm suspending a session has stalled.
3. Doesn't have sharing between folders that takes a good 5 seconds to parse the files and doesn't drop a file mapping in your file explorer.
4. Doesn't have the world's crappiest networking passthrough. I can't count how many times I've gone from one network to another to another and had it get confused telling me I might have limited network connectivity. So I need to repair the connection.

Parallels sucks but until now its been the only REAL game in town. Boo hoo I'm not paying for an app that IMHO is half baked to begin with. :rolleyes: At least I'm not outright going in search of a seral number and pirating the thing. Again its a tide me over until VM gets their butt in gear and releases this thing.

Dude, your doing something totally wrong. I've got Parallels running a 1.83ghz , 1gb MacBook and its pretty much instant at everything! Never hung on me every, suspending takes only a few seconds, likewise from resume. Sharing of files is instant, well no differenace than working on it nativly.

I have XP SP2, Office 2003, Sage, Visio, Project, Money and Autoroute all running and never have any probs.

Your doing somat wrong mate.

[inkhead]

Just FYI.

The "private" beta that's being circulated is a very old beta in the development stage. VMware has big plans, and is working closely with Apple to have a true Mac look and feel.

Things VMware Final version will do:
Be 100% Free
Support Adjusting how many processors you use.
64bit support and optimization
Drag and drop into the VM window (just try dragging a file off your desktop into the VM now)

***And full support to use your bootcamp volume. So you don't have to have two disks anymore or one for Virtual Machine, and another for bootcamp with full video accelerations. You can just run your bootcamp volume right inside of VMware for those times when you don't want to reboot, and just need to do work. That way you only have one copy of windows on your machine! No VM needed!

**Support for "Virtual Appliances" which VMware has a bunch of on their site. Thousands of companies make ready-made Virtual Machines, that you can download and run in VMware, such as a lamp server, special build of RedHat, or a Ubuntu for graphics, or a mail server, or anything you can imagine, there are over 100,000 Virtual Appliances available on the VMware site, and you can create your own "Virtual Appliance" and share it with your friends!

[Egomaniac]

To be honest, I've had more application crashes and restarts on OSX than I have under XP/Windows in the past 3 years. So much for "crash resistant" - and yes, I've had 4 kernel panics since I got this iMac home; that's more than the number of BSODs I've had under XP in 4 years.

Which means -- as everyone is saying -- that there is something wrong with your computer. I have a MacBook, two Intel iMacs, and a Mac Pro in my house, and they do not crash despite heavy daily use. My poor Mac Pro is running three different operating systems right now using Parallels, with nary a complaint. If you are getting unexplained kernel panics on a clean install of Mac OS X, then you have a hardware problem.

Hardware problems can affect any OS -- I've seen Windows systems that get daily BSODs. It's not because "Windows sucks", it's because there was a sub-par memory chip or somesuch in the system. Likewise Mac OS X crashes, when nobody else is experiencing a problem, are not an indication of the stability of the OS but rather of your hardware.

[YoNeX]

Just FYI.

The "private" beta that's being circulated is a very old beta in the development stage. VMware has big plans, and is working closely with Apple to have a true Mac look and feel.

Things VMware Final version will do:
Be 100% Free
Support Adjusting how many processors you use.
64bit support and optimization
Drag and drop into the VM window (just try dragging a file off your desktop into the VM now)

***And full support to use your bootcamp volume. So you don't have to have two disks anymore or one for Virtual Machine, and another for bootcamp with full video accelerations. You can just run your bootcamp volume right inside of VMware for those times when you don't want to reboot, and just need to do work. That way you only have one copy of windows on your machine! No VM needed!

**Support for "Virtual Appliances" which VMware has a bunch of on their site. Thousands of companies make ready-made Virtual Machines, that you can download and run in VMware, such as a lamp server, special build of RedHat, or a Ubuntu for graphics, or a mail server, or anything you can imagine, there are over 100,000 Virtual Appliances available on the VMware site, and you can create your own "Virtual Appliance" and share it with your friends!

I don't know about the free part though. If its just a player (like the current Beta), I can see that being free. But if they add all those extra features I don't see it being free at all. But then again, Macs aren't targeted towards the Corporations, so they might just make one version with a lot of features and not charge as much as VMware Workstation (for Windows).

Yes, the current version is really buggy.

[shawnce]

No I've been waiting for VM to get their butt in gear to launch Workstation. Parallels was simply a work around, a crappy one at that, until I could get VMWare. There is simply no way in heck I'm spending $80 on a piece of software that can crash my system. And before someone tells me to use Bootcamp. Yah right. Advanced Power Management does not work right under Bootcamp even with the latest version. When Parallels starts making a product that
1. Doesn't crash\freeze my system
2. Doesn't require me to force quite the application once every couple of weeks because the progress bar when I'm suspending a session has stalled.
3. Doesn't have sharing between folders that takes a good 5 seconds to parse the files and doesn't drop a file mapping in your file explorer.
4. Doesn't have the world's crappiest networking passthrough. I can't count how many times I've gone from one network to another to another and had it get confused telling me I might have limited network connectivity. So I need to repair the connection.

Parallels sucks but until now its been the only REAL game in town. Again... weird... I don't have any of the problems you are reporting on the now 4 different systems we run parallels on (2 x MacBook Pro 1 and 2 GiB, 2 x Mac Pro 2 and 6 GiB). On all system not a single crash, system lockup or stall and Windows XP Pro fells like it runs faster then on my dedicated Dell system.

One thing you have to realize is that when Parallels fires up a VM it wires down all of the memory for that VM. So basically it is making the VM memory fully unavailable for use by Mac OS X. If your VMs are large and your working set for the applications you are running on Mac OS X is also large then you will get swapping.

[br0adband]

To be honest, I've had more application crashes and restarts on OSX than I have under XP/Windows in the past 3 years. So much for "crash resistant" - and yes, I've had 4 kernel panics since I got this iMac home; that's more than the number of BSODs I've had under XP in 4 years.

Which means -- as everyone is saying -- that there is something wrong with your computer. I have a MacBook, two Intel iMacs, and a Mac Pro in my house, and they do not crash despite heavy daily use. My poor Mac Pro is running three different operating systems right now using Parallels, with nary a complaint. If you are getting unexplained kernel panics on a clean install of Mac OS X, then you have a hardware problem.

Hardware problems can affect any OS -- I've seen Windows systems that get daily BSODs. It's not because "Windows sucks", it's because there was a sub-par memory chip or somesuch in the system. Likewise Mac OS X crashes, when nobody else is experiencing a problem, are not an indication of the stability of the OS but rather of your hardware.

You're quoting me back to me when all of us (including me) were talking about that other guy that is having hardware problems because his Parallels "sucks." Parallels kicks ass on my C2D 20" iMac - hence the reason I piped up to be the first to say something is wrong with the other guy's machine if he can't get it working right.

On mine, which is stock hardware except for the 2GB of RAM I have in it, Parallels starts up in 4 seconds, boots my XP VM in 9-10, shuts down in 3-4, restarts the same VM in under 5 seconds (have yet to figure that one out, probably because of caching someplace; I don't even see the XP splash screen when it reboots/restarts because it's so fast), suspends in 22-25 seconds, resumes in 30-34, and I have no issues with any hardware at all in my XP VM. I even burn CDs and DVDs from the XP VM over FireWire/USB without hassles (Plextor FireWire/USB external).

So, on a similarly configured piece of hardware, if he's having suspend/resume times that seem to be 4-6x longer than others then, as you said, there is something wrong with the hardware. If none of the rest of us are having said issues, your line of logic would follow and apply to his machine since he's the only one reporting such ridiculously long suspend/resume times among other things.

Parallels works for me. Since I can't post specific benchmark data for Parallels and that other new-on-the-scene virtualization software for Macs <hint, hint> I'll just say this:

I completed the testing I said I was going to do, and Parallels simply lays the smackdown across that other software. And yes I'm well aware that other software is in beta - or pre-beta late alpha as one person put it - and that's fine. But I paid for Parallels, and to use that most famous line about Macs:

It just works.

Oh yeah, it beats that other software even with multi-core CPU support enabled. Go figure.

bb

Parallels sucks but until now its been the only REAL game in town.

Ah... the clarion call of lamers. Might as well bash Windows since it's so pervasive while you're at it. And it's still no excuse for stealing the software and breaking the faith. Bleh...

[weezerr]

no matter what I do, I can't get mouse input to work in fusion. keyboard input works great, but as soon as I click in the window, my mouse goes dead within VM. Using a wired mouse, plugged directly into an imac...

[Foggy]

Parallels sucks but until now its been the only REAL game in town. Boo hoo I'm not paying for an app that IMHO is half baked to begin with. :rolleyes: At least I'm not outright going in search of a seral number and pirating the thing. Again its a tide me over until VM gets their butt in gear and releases this thing.

Ahh ok - so if I dont like something then I dont have to pay for it? $80 for an app that, by your own admission, you are using all day every day doesnt sound a lot whether you like the app or not.

[plarusa]

Does anyone have an idea of what (if anything) this does that Parallels doesn't? Parallels has done a great job and is really great except for the video acceleration. If someone could figure that out and let us play XP games in OS X I would be one happy guy.
I anticipate Fusion to be better than Parallels in the following area,
Virtualization of more than one CPU
Support for more than one network card
Better USB 1.1 implementation
USB 2.0
ACPI
More robust with multiple VMs
Far better customer support.

[plarusa]

To be honest, I've had more application crashes and restarts on OSX than I have under XP/Windows in the past 3 years. So much for "crash resistant"
bb
Really ? I find that very hard to believe. I have been using a Macbook Pro for a year and I have yet to see what a kernel crash looks like. These types of crashes are regular occurances on all of my Windows machines. And don't get me started on the Virus subject.

[YoNeX]

Really ? I find that very hard to believe. I have been using a Macbook Pro for a year and I have yet to see what a kernel crash looks like. These types of crashes are regular occurances on all of my Windows machines. And don't get me started on the Virus subject.

I've had about 6 kernel panics in about a time span of 2 months.

[Westside guy]

I've had about 6 kernel panics in about a time span of 2 months.

This can be caused by a number of things (on any computer; not just on a Mac):

- Bad RAM. More likely if you've added a 3rd party stick yourself.

- Bad power supply.

- Faulty (or noisy/dirty) house wiring. More noticable with a desktop than a laptop since the laptop's transformer will help isolate the computer from the noise.

[br0adband]

I'm not a "normal PC/Mac user" so in my daily usage I do maybe 100x more than "Joe Blow, PC/Mac owner." I install software, test it, remove it, reinstall it. I beta test software, sometimes alpha software for many companies <hint, hint>. I'm so far removed from your average computer owner it's not even funny.

I put OSX through it's paces on a daily basis (yeah, that rhymes, I know it) and so when something crashes I don't directly attribute it to the operating system itself because I know from experience it can be most anything. When someone says "I got <xxx> problem, what can I do?" the first thing that crosses my mind is a mental checklist I've created over the 30+ years I've been doing this stuff, and it's a really long checklist covering software, hardware, and the most important part of all in the equation: humans.

I don't know what problems other people have, but for me, Windows isn't an issue. I could sit here and talk about it, but since it's a Mac forum that wouldn't be a good idea in many respects. The only time I've had a virus in decades was by using AV software - figure that one out. I don't use AV software presently, I don't use Firefox as most sheeple seem to do these days, I don't have issues with IE like most sheeple seem to do these days either.

I'm not trying to turn this into a you-know-what contest, suffice to say I don't do the casual websurfing/email/watch a movie stuff that most users - and yes that's a broad generalization, but when was the last time the guy walking out of an Apple Store with his son or daughter or whatever was planning to go home and rip DVDs and compile software? Hardly the typical activity of a typical user.

I use operating systems, pushing them to their limits and back, so when something breaks, I don't immediately blow off the software and say "IT SUCKS" like some people around here - and then have the nerve to say "But since it's the only game in town I use this software even though IT SUCKS and I won't pay for it ever so I keep using it illegally even though IT SUCKS" etc.

Just my $.02 and lot of change... but I think some people around here would do themselves a favor by either:

a) paying for it then complaining to the software maker to improve it
b) paying for it so your opinions actually mean something to those of that have and use it because we own it
c) shut up before you dig yourself a hole you'll never climb out of

That's just me, of course... I'm not alone, but I'm not the kind to sit idly by and let someone trounce a good product for no good reason.

bb

[ShiggyMiyamoto]

Does VMWare for Windows and Linux have direct access to the physical graphics hardware? A friend would use that instead of Parallels or Boot Camp in a heartbeat if it did. He's a gamer.

[YoNeX]

Does VMWare for Windows and Linux have direct access to the physical graphics hardware? A friend would use that instead of Parallels or Boot Camp in a heartbeat if it did. He's a gamer.
The feature currently doesn't seem to exist (or may be hidden).

[ShiggyMiyamoto]

The feature currently doesn't seem to exist (or may be hidden).

In which version? For Win/Lin or the OS X beta?

[jhande]

One of my main reasons for getting the MB vs. keeping my iBook was Parallels.

I develop for several platforms, so this was 'made in heaven' if i worked.

Well, after a month of testing and developing I can say that Parallels has been an unqualified success.

Currently I'm running Ubuntu, Solaris 10 (Dtrace, zones and ZFS rules, but that is another debate), and Win2k. Apart from an issue getting the screen resolution right in Sun's Java Desktop, I have had no problems whatsoever.

Since I'm not doing any 3D work, graphics acceleration isn't an issue for me.

It's the best 70-odd dollars I've ever spent.

Oh yeah, to the guy with stability issues..... I have no idea what you've been doing to your machine, but I haven't yet had a kernel panic of any kind (nor a BSOD in Parallels), so I don't recognize the situation at all. And, believe me, when you rape a system the way I do, running a long compile in the background while at the same time converting a video (just to see the stress handling capabilities - I wouldn't do that normally, compiles take too long :)), you get a good feel for the stability of the system. This baby is rock solid.

For the record: MB CD 2GB 120GBHD

/jhande

[ananasgroup]

Hey guys,

I might be a bit off topic here, but im gonna risk it anyways...

I am a VS2005 c# developer (Compact Framework) and in the process of switching to Mac.

I am currently working exclusivly on a Dell PC, and toying with the idea of throwing away that ugly piece of plastic, and getting a shiny new mac book pro.

Now here is the thing : how do i keep the great performance i currently have on my Dell ? (bootcamp is out of the question since I do not want to keep booting my machine to check emails etc...)

Will VMWare cut it ? I head some discussion on the poor performace Parallels has when it comes to disk access (compiling is disk intensive).

Any thoughts ? did any one here try it ?

[witness]

I am a VS2005 c# developer (Compact Framework) and in the process of switching to Mac.

I am currently working exclusivly on a Dell PC, and toying with the idea of throwing away that ugly piece of plastic, and getting a shiny new mac book pro.

Now here is the thing : how do i keep the great performance i currently have on my Dell ? (bootcamp is out of the question since I do not want to keep booting my machine to check emails etc...)

Will VMWare cut it ? I head some discussion on the poor performace Parallels has when it comes to disk access (compiling is disk intensive).

Any thoughts ? did any one here try it ?

I've been doing full time C# development on Intel Macs (iMac, MacBook and MacBook Pro) for about 6 months now. I use Parallels (only because vmware is not available yet) and have no performance problems. Visual studio is not graphically intensive, which is probably the only area where virtual environments suffer these days.

There are a few quirks that you'll have to work around, such as the F9-F12 keys being mapped in OS X, so if you use these keys for debugging then you'll probably want to remap them, but that's not a big deal, but generally the experience is very good. And of course you can tab between Windows and OS X so that you can have your email and other stuff where it works best and only development stuff in Windows.

[ChrisA]

Will VMWare cut it ? I head some discussion on the poor performace Parallels has when it comes to disk access (compiling is disk intensive).


I find compiling is NOT disk intensive. Not if you have enough RAM installed. In my case the tools AND all the source code can fit in the system's cache.

[YoNeX]

Has anyone been getting updates at all from VMware? I sent in my request for Discussion Forums (a while back), but haven't gotten access.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

No one has it seems. There's reports of a few people running the beta, but it seems isolated. I think it was a release in name only. Hopefully we'll see something around MW in Jan? Who knows.



Has anyone been getting updates at all from VMware? I sent in my request for Discussion Forums (a while back), but haven't gotten access.

[carterx]

I've been using Parallels for running VISTA and Win XP but today I found the link for the Vmware Beta Download that has only from what I understand been handed out to some for testing.

Here is the link that I downloaded the beta from:
http://fs01n5.sendspace.com/dl/6144991f8a6907390971fa15063bfbdf/45743bcd/h08tq5/VMware-Fusion-e.x.p-33141.dmg

I’m running it and works well. I know it’s in Beta but already after installing and running our Full copy of Vista and Win XP on Fusion, I’m going to stick with Vmware.

Now, right now it’s free, and not sure if it will cost money down the road for Vmware, but this one is free but only perk to Vmware is that the “Vmware” logo pop up as a water mark on the screen every now and then. Hasesnt really bothered me.

Anyways, good luck if you try it out.
Can’t wait for the full release free or not, will probably get it.

Carter

[Westside guy]

Look, it is not my intention to cast any aspersions on carterx, but it would be totally STUPID for anyone to download and install software that's sitting on a site other than the offical one (vmware.com in this case) just because someone posted it to a forum. Doubly so when the link is posted by someone who's joined the forum in the past few days!

People, you need to use some security sense. Nine times out of ten a link posted by a random user is probably safe; but it's that other time you need to worry about. Especially now that Macs have a higher profile.

[carterx]

Ok, well, yes, it's not on the VMware site. It's a copy from a user that recieved the Beta copy and then posted it on a file site for others to download.

If I seen that it had issues with the download I would not have posted the link, but that does not say that there could be some issues for some odd reason.

Anyways, I have been using it myself without an issue, but as "Westside guy" stated use your own caution doing so.

I can understand the concern. If you want to wait for an invite or full release, then do so.

I'm loving the program and will be buying it as soon as it is release (that is if there is a cost to it or not)