Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Battlefield Fan

macrumors 65816
Mar 9, 2008
1,063
0
Recently had to decide wether to use VMWare Fusion or parallel on all our staff computers. Chose VMWare..

It works really well, but now i'm kind of regretting it..

He was just outright awesome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNiWQcr7Z6k

Agreed. I think him leaving Apple explains why Lion and Mountain Lion feel more like iOS updates and not an OSX update. This man truly understood what mac users wanted.
 

SteveGreen

macrumors newbie
Jul 18, 2012
1
0
Traitor!

He is traitor for me now! How he can do that?

What the Parallels is? It's company that helps people to run ugly, useless, stupid application on great OS X with great technologies, like Time Machine, Spotlight, Core Animation and others. Parallels is scum on Mac OS. It's tools, that's even can't bring performance, because it's impossible. If you a Mac user and you need (funny to say that) run Windows app, you can run (free!) BootCamp and install Win on it with the best performance on your Mac.

You ever install Parallels? I try it. It's like a usual Win apps install a lot of trah to your Mac.

Damn it, I hate him now. Traitor.
jsfoEATERXQDt.jpg


Btw! Did you know that the founder of the company is Serguei Beloussov. In 2011 he handed over the CEO Birger Sten, who held to the time in various positions at Microsoft, and the well-known 10-fold increase in revenue of the Russian representative office of Microsoft in the period from 2004 to 2009.

This is Microsoft company. I hate it.
 

Winni

macrumors 68040
Oct 15, 2008
3,207
1,196
Germany.
I wonder how much longer Fusion and Parallels will be around. Microsoft have improved the built in virtualisation in Windows 8 (I'm talking about the desktop version, not server) which a lot more people will start using.

Kind of puts some pressure on Apple to build in the same functionality to OS X, at which point stand alone products will become pretty much redundant. Bit surprised it isn't in Mountain Lion, I'd be really surprised if it's not in the next release as its more important in OS X than Windows.

I doubt that Apple will integrate virtualization technology into OS X - for Apple, it's like saying that their own OS is not up to the task and that it needs a third party OS to get the job done. Which for many people is the sad and simple truth, but nobody wants to admit it. The moment you NEED an application that only runs in (virtualized) Windows, you know that your investment into the OS X ecosystem was a waste of time and money because you only managed to double your system's complexity and the license, support and maintenance costs. But that's just an unpopular truth nobody wants to talk about.

I also doubt that the market for desktop virtualization is really that important for VMWare. Desktops and notebooks became powerful enough to make virtualization feasible on non-server hardware, so it was a no-brainer to port the technology. However, the real market for such products are still servers - and there VMWare does not even need a third party host operating system to run (it comes with its own Linux core). And even better, they can afford to give away their base server product ESXi free of charge and are still profitable.

Parallels might have more problems in the future. They are well established in the desktop market, but far behind VMWare in data centers. And the last time I looked, VMWare's products were simply more professional, robust, mature and better supported.

And although Oracle's VirtualBox is Open Source and actually good enough for most scenarios, commercial environments and professionals still prefer to use proprietary VMWare products. I think that alone speaks volumes about the quality of the respective products and their support.
 

carlemil

macrumors member
Dec 7, 2010
51
0
Copenhagen, Denmark
He is traitor for me now! How he can do that?

What the Parallels is? It's company that helps people to run ugly, useless, stupid application on great OS X with great technologies, like Time Machine, Spotlight, Core Animation and others. Parallels is scum on Mac OS. It's tools, that's even can't bring performance, because it's impossible. If you a Mac user and you need (funny to say that) run Windows app, you can run (free!) BootCamp and install Win on it with the best performance on your Mac.

You ever install Parallels? I try it. It's like a usual Win apps install a lot of trah to your Mac.

Damn it, I hate him now. Traitor.
Image

Btw! Did you know that the founder of the company is Serguei Beloussov. In 2011 he handed over the CEO Birger Sten, who held to the time in various positions at Microsoft, and the well-known 10-fold increase in revenue of the Russian representative office of Microsoft in the period from 2004 to 2009.

This is Microsoft company. I hate it.

Get a grip.
We are all Apple devotees, but seriously.
 

steve-p

macrumors 68000
Oct 14, 2008
1,740
42
Newbury, UK
He is traitor for me now! How he can do that?

What the Parallels is? It's company that helps people to run ugly, useless, stupid application on great OS X with great technologies, like Time Machine, Spotlight, Core Animation and others. Parallels is scum on Mac OS. It's tools, that's even can't bring performance, because it's impossible. If you a Mac user and you need (funny to say that) run Windows app, you can run (free!) BootCamp and install Win on it with the best performance on your Mac.

You ever install Parallels? I try it. It's like a usual Win apps install a lot of trah to your Mac.

Damn it, I hate him now. Traitor.
Image

Btw! Did you know that the founder of the company is Serguei Beloussov. In 2011 he handed over the CEO Birger Sten, who held to the time in various positions at Microsoft, and the well-known 10-fold increase in revenue of the Russian representative office of Microsoft in the period from 2004 to 2009.

This is Microsoft company. I hate it.
This is one of those occasions where a post doesn't even deserve a reply. Just a down vote.
 

babyj

macrumors 6502a
Aug 29, 2006
586
8
I doubt that Apple will integrate virtualization technology into OS X - for Apple, it's like saying that their own OS is not up to the task and that it needs a third party OS to get the job done.

There are lots of reasons for running virtual machines and there is nothing wrong with a Mac user needing to use Windows (hence Boot Camp), none of which means OS X isn't up to the job.
 

dyn

macrumors 68030
Aug 8, 2009
2,708
388
.nl
I doubt that Apple will integrate virtualization technology into OS X - for Apple, it's like saying that their own OS is not up to the task and that it needs a third party OS to get the job done.
If you think of that then clearly you have no idea what virtualisation is and what it allows you to do.

Virtualisation has been adopted for years by sysadmins and developers because they have a separated environment where they can do pretty much anything they want. This allows for testing and development of various items without breaking any production systems and thus wreaking havoc causing upset users, etc.

It is only since desktops and notebooks have gotten fast enough to use virtualisation that the average user got in touch with it. They are using it mostly only for running apps that require a Windows environment.

Apple won't integrate virtualisation in their OS because it isn't a very easy thing to do. It means they have to put a lot of time and effort (thus money) into something others are already very good at. The competition is fierce. It simply isn't economical to do.

I also doubt that the market for desktop virtualization is really that important for VMWare.
It is very important because it is what they use themselves for their own work. They have consultants, developers, teachers, etc. that all need to use it to show people what their products are capable of, how you should use something, etc. Many non-VMware people use those desktop products for the exact same reasons.

However, the real market for such products are still servers - and there VMWare does not even need a third party host operating system to run (it comes with its own Linux core). And even better, they can afford to give away their base server product ESXi free of charge and are still profitable.
As you can clearly see from the VMware product line up the real market isn't the virtualisation products themselves. That is why they can give away ESXi for free. ESXi is the bare metal hypervisor, the core of nearly all their server oriented virtualisation products. If we take a closer look at things we see that it is all about the management tools. vSphere pricing is mostly based around that. You want something to easily manage updates for ESXi? No problem, VMware has something for that...and it will cost you quite some money.

Parallels might have more problems in the future. They are well established in the desktop market, but far behind VMWare in data centers. And the last time I looked, VMWare's products were simply more professional, robust, mature and better supported.
Not really. It depends on what product form Parallels you look at. Parallels is a company that also does more than virtualisation unlike VMware. Plesk is another product from Parallels that has nothing to do with virtualisation and is probably a product they are far better known for (well, Virtuozzo might be another).

And although Oracle's VirtualBox is Open Source and actually good enough for most scenarios, commercial environments and professionals still prefer to use proprietary VMWare products. I think that alone speaks volumes about the quality of the respective products and their support.
VMware invented the current virtualisation market. They have had a chance to build a reputation for years now. There are still a lot of people who only know VMware and not the others. When they try out something like XenServer from Citrix (which has nicer licensing but less guest OS support) they are pleasantly surprised. When it comes to professionals there are ones who like VMware products, there are ones who like XenServer and there are ones who like Hyper-V (some would call those people idiots because Hyper-V is the crappiest of them all). Which basically boils down to "mixed OS environment", "Windows-Linux environment" and "Windows-only environment". Quality has not a lot to do with it, it is all about reputation and what operating systems you are going to use.
 

babyj

macrumors 6502a
Aug 29, 2006
586
8
Apple won't integrate virtualisation in their OS because it isn't a very easy thing to do. It means they have to put a lot of time and effort (thus money) into something others are already very good at. The competition is fierce. It simply isn't economical to do.

As you can clearly see from the VMware product line up the real market isn't the virtualisation products themselves. That is why they can give away ESXi for free. ESXi is the bare metal hypervisor, the core of nearly all their server oriented virtualisation products. If we take a closer look at things we see that it is all about the management tools. vSphere pricing is mostly based around that. You want something to easily manage updates for ESXi? No problem, VMware has something for that...and it will cost you quite some money.

Apple wouldn't need to write a hypervisor from scratch, they'd just need to do a deal with someone like VMware or Oracle to buy or license a product.

The free version isn't called ESXi anymore, it's now vSphere Hypervisor. There is a lot of features and functionality it doesn't have, meaning it's fine for production on a stand alone server but that's about it.

It's going to be interesting to see the effect of Server 2012, there has been a lot of improvements to Hyper-V and Microsoft don't charge extra for it - you just buy the relevant version of Server 2012. They even include licenses to host additional Server instances (2 with Standard, unlimited with Data Centre).
 

Pompiliu

macrumors 6502a
Apr 22, 2012
544
0
Together with Avie Tevanian, Bertrand Serlet constitutes one of the GREAT management losses at Apple in the last five years...both executives' talents at developing top-class Mac software and OS won't be replaced anytime soon.

In the meantime, we have to deal with Scott Forstall, Craig Federighi and their rabid integration of iOS crap into OS X...alas, how the times have changed...
Agree!
Think about Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard! Heck, i'd still use SL if i could. Best OS ever!

But hey, now we have Reminders and LauchPad and GameCenter! Who cares about Expose and proper Spaces? FullScreen Apps are the future! LOL. Everyone with at least 2 monitors loves fullscreen apps! ;)
 

dyn

macrumors 68030
Aug 8, 2009
2,708
388
.nl
Apple wouldn't need to write a hypervisor from scratch, they'd just need to do a deal with someone like VMware or Oracle to buy or license a product.
That's not writing your own hypervisor, that is adding a product to your own package. Just like when you'd order in the Online Apple Store and they add that sleeve you bought with the MBA. In other words it would be the exact same situation as we have now so nothing changes ;)

The free version isn't called ESXi anymore, it's now vSphere Hypervisor. There is a lot of features and functionality it doesn't have, meaning it's fine for production on a stand alone server but that's about it.
Not quite. The technology is called ESXi but the official product name is "VMware vSphere Hypervisor (ESXi)". Problem with VMware: they keep changing their product names :mad: It simply is the hypervisor with a management tool and it indeed does some basic stuff. If you buy one of their vSphere licensing you get more functionality like vCenter. They all use the same hypervisor though. The additional license gives you extra management tool options as well as enabling or disabling certain functionality in the hypervisor (such as hardware support: amount of vRAM, etc.). The biggest differences will still be in the management tooling (check out their vSphere licenses overview).

It's going to be interesting to see the effect of Server 2012, there has been a lot of improvements to Hyper-V and Microsoft don't charge extra for it - you just buy the relevant version of Server 2012. They even include licenses to host additional Server instances (2 with Standard, unlimited with Data Centre).
Which is the same thing as what VMware and Citrix are doing which are better known and have more management tooling around than Hyper-V does. They have quite the competition (the more the better of course!).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.