I didn't like VMware Fusion the very first time I used it, but I switched back after its final release and haven't looked back since. Fusion is just hands down better than Parallels, and v2 only makes the superiority even more great.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
VMware Fusion 2.0 and Parallels 4.0 Beta
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This has never happened for me on my MacBook Pro, so I wonder if it is just the usual Windows crapshoot of whether it will work with a given configuration. I am very happy with Fusion; it has run everything I've thrown at it, including specialized things like lighting control (Hog PC 3) and video switching (Vista Spyder) software.
You've hit the nail on the head:
VMWare is to OS X 10.5 Leopard what Classic was to OS X 10.3 and earlier.
A way of (fairly) seamlessly running your old apps while you move to a new system.
And look what happened to Classic once the migration was complete. The same fate is not going to happen entirely to Windows any time soon, but it will have Microsoft worried.
Any box which doesn't require a Windows license to function has Microsoft worried.
Since running Windows in Sun, VMWare or Parallels requires a Windows license, as long as there is just ONE "must-have" Windows application for anyone, whatever that app is, Microsoft has nothing to worry about it.
This Parallels is better than VMWare, or vice versa back and forth many are engaging in is like some stupid religious or OS debate. The only correct answer to that question is "whichever works best on your system providing the functionality you need." Counting up the unsubstantiated "Parallels sucks" or "VMWare isn't as good Parallels" type posts is pointless.
If you don't have one or the other, or want to try the one you don't have, just download the free trial versions and give it a whirl. Both programs support importing a virtual machine from the competitor's product, so you're only a few mouse clicks away from a side by side comparison of the same installation.
Importing back and forth has worked well for me, though VMWare 2.0 keeps puking on a 65gb Parallels Vista VM I've been trying to import over. Doesn't matter in the end, since the only reason I wanted to import that machine was to see if VMWare 2.0 could handle playing videos in Vista Media Center properly, and it can't, so that MacPro stays with Parallels while my MacBookPro will stay with VMWare for Quicken.
I don't really care about the documents inside Windows. I'm a Mac user exclusively, and all my documents are on my Mac. I only use Windows virtual machines for Internet Explorer testing, and I have three virtual machines, one for IE6, IE7, and IE8. What I want to back up is the machines, not the documents in them. Currently, the virtual hard drives are these huge 8 GB files that change every time you start the VM. I'm hoping they move to a format where the hard drives are made up many smaller files, like the sparsebundle format Time Machine uses for network backups.
That's getting there. Currently I use "undo disks" in Parallels, which splits the hard drive file into 2 pieces - changes to the hard drive are written to a separate file, which makes time machine run much quicker.
I think I fixed the issue. I found this solution on the Apple.com discussion forums.
1. Open "http://localhost:631/printers" in Safari
2. Scroll the page until you see the printer
3. Click on the Modify Printer button
4. Click on the "Unknown USB" radio button in the list of local
printers
5. Click continue
6. On the next 2 pages, click continue
7. Click the Print Test Page button when the printer status
page is shown
Now, the printer works just fine, but the jumpy mouse is still annoying. Oh well, at least I can print again.
1. Open "http://localhost:631/printers" in Safari
2. Scroll the page until you see the printer
3. Click on the Modify Printer button
4. Click on the "Unknown USB" radio button in the list of local
printers
5. Click continue
6. On the next 2 pages, click continue
7. Click the Print Test Page button when the printer status
page is shown
Now, the printer works just fine, but the jumpy mouse is still annoying. Oh well, at least I can print again.
I've tried upgrading to VMWare 2.0 (since beta 1), and here is a repetitive problem I encur which cause me to switch back to 1.1.3
I'm running Win XP Pro w/sp2 on a 2.66 imac w/2 gb ram. I've allocated 1 gb ram to the virtual machine, 2 processors and the virtual machine is set for guest optimization. I'm only using it to play Civilization Conquests multiplayer .vs. XP users. I've got my desktop set to 1344x860 in OS X and a line in my config file for conquests is set to use that resolution. On Fusion 2.0b1 or Fusion 1.1.3 it works perfectly. On Fusion 2.0b2 or greater, the game crashes with an error referencing an igl.dll file (supposedly this might be some spyware, but it isn't....I've installed Windows and Civ thats it, no surfing on Win XP). If I change the resolution in Windows, it doesn't crash (but I want to use that res).
Fusion 2.0 has some nice features, but I can't use em (yet).
my 2 cents
Tom
I'm running Win XP Pro w/sp2 on a 2.66 imac w/2 gb ram. I've allocated 1 gb ram to the virtual machine, 2 processors and the virtual machine is set for guest optimization. I'm only using it to play Civilization Conquests multiplayer .vs. XP users. I've got my desktop set to 1344x860 in OS X and a line in my config file for conquests is set to use that resolution. On Fusion 2.0b1 or Fusion 1.1.3 it works perfectly. On Fusion 2.0b2 or greater, the game crashes with an error referencing an igl.dll file (supposedly this might be some spyware, but it isn't....I've installed Windows and Civ thats it, no surfing on Win XP). If I change the resolution in Windows, it doesn't crash (but I want to use that res).
Fusion 2.0 has some nice features, but I can't use em (yet).
my 2 cents
Tom
You made a mistake by paying full price, VMware offers a rebate for Parallels users that switch. http://www.vmware.com/landing_pages/fusion_rebate.html $30 off to switch.
openGL Configurate in VMware
I was hoping that it was possible to use my 8600 gt in the Macbook Pro, to model sketchup under my XP bootcamp installation. It still doesn't accelerate anything. What have I done wrong, or what should I do
I was hoping that it was possible to use my 8600 gt in the Macbook Pro, to model sketchup under my XP bootcamp installation. It still doesn't accelerate anything. What have I done wrong, or what should I do
3D Performance
Running Fusion 2.0 on a Macbook Pro, GeForce 8600M GT, Windows Vista x64
I get terrible performance in games and score a 1.0 on the Windows Experience's gaming graphics subscore.
3D acceleration is enabled in Fusion's options and I installed the latest VMWare Tools. What's going on here?
Running Fusion 2.0 on a Macbook Pro, GeForce 8600M GT, Windows Vista x64
I get terrible performance in games and score a 1.0 on the Windows Experience's gaming graphics subscore.
3D acceleration is enabled in Fusion's options and I installed the latest VMWare Tools. What's going on here?
Uh, your running Fusion?
If you want to play hard core games in XP, you have to boot into Boot Camp. At least that is my experience with Fusion and Parallels.
I'm only using one CPU under Fusion and I'm not accelerating the graphics. When would you suggest I use either of the two?
Quick question/Clarification of a new feature.
I have already set up my boot camp partition. I don't want to have two separate instances of windows on my machine. Can vmware open and modify my already existing boot camp partition while still letting me access it on start up. For example, I want to use vmware for some school related work under osx. But lets say I want to play a game, can I still open the same partition in boot camp?
I read vmware's site and it seems like it can. Below is a quote from their site. But my fear is that once I open it using vmware Fusion, I wont be able to use boot camp anymore.
"Boot Camp Support
Graduating from Boot Camp is a snap with VMware Fusion. No longer have to chose between Windows and Mac at bootup; run your existing Windows partition side by side with your Mac. VMware Fusion automatically recognizes your existing Boot Camp partition and quickly lets your run it concurrently with your Mac.
And when youre ready, easily import your Boot Camp partition and reclaim unused space on your partition, while taking advantage of great virtual-only features like Snapshots, AutoProtect, and the ability to instantly Suspend and Resume without waiting for Windows to boot."
It seems to me as if I can do what I want, but I just want to make sure I am correct.
Has anyone done this?
I have already set up my boot camp partition. I don't want to have two separate instances of windows on my machine. Can vmware open and modify my already existing boot camp partition while still letting me access it on start up. For example, I want to use vmware for some school related work under osx. But lets say I want to play a game, can I still open the same partition in boot camp?
I read vmware's site and it seems like it can. Below is a quote from their site. But my fear is that once I open it using vmware Fusion, I wont be able to use boot camp anymore.
"Boot Camp Support
Graduating from Boot Camp is a snap with VMware Fusion. No longer have to chose between Windows and Mac at bootup; run your existing Windows partition side by side with your Mac. VMware Fusion automatically recognizes your existing Boot Camp partition and quickly lets your run it concurrently with your Mac.
And when youre ready, easily import your Boot Camp partition and reclaim unused space on your partition, while taking advantage of great virtual-only features like Snapshots, AutoProtect, and the ability to instantly Suspend and Resume without waiting for Windows to boot."
It seems to me as if I can do what I want, but I just want to make sure I am correct.
Has anyone done this?
Yes Fusion allows you to use your bootcamp files. Thats actually exactly what i'm doing. All it does is creates a vm from your bootcamp and then installs vmware drivers into that VM. when you boot into bootcamp, those drivers are disabled and you only use physical. when u boot into fusion vmware drivers are used.
Let me just ask to see if I get this right....
Vmware and Fusion, are they something like unix's wine? Windows compatibility layer? If so how come wine hasn't been ported to os x? Why do fusion and vmware have to load up full installations of xp and vista and don't go the compatibility (as far as I can tell) layer way the way wine does on my ubuntu?
Thanks!
Vmware and Fusion, are they something like unix's wine? Windows compatibility layer? If so how come wine hasn't been ported to os x? Why do fusion and vmware have to load up full installations of xp and vista and don't go the compatibility (as far as I can tell) layer way the way wine does on my ubuntu?
Thanks!
I do the same thing, Boot-camp inside VM, its great for shifting files back and forth. I do this with Vista64 on my iMac and XP on my Macbook.
Only problem is running (sometimes accidentally) apps which need activation, a lot of them get confused and need reactivating if you run them in VM.. A bit of a nuisance - i wish there was a way of telling vmware and parallels that they should not -under any circumstances- load certain applications, heh.
Gaming in VMware and Parallels is a bit useless, though some things work surprisingly well (on a top of the line imac) Hellgate London worked ok.. Team Fortress 2 is playable but not great. You're much *much* better off using Crossover Games for the games that it supports though.
I used to be a parallels guy but their support for the Bootcamp/virtual thing has always been a bit screwy, and VMware seems to have marched ahead in performance on my machines.
Only problem is running (sometimes accidentally) apps which need activation, a lot of them get confused and need reactivating if you run them in VM.. A bit of a nuisance - i wish there was a way of telling vmware and parallels that they should not -under any circumstances- load certain applications, heh.
Gaming in VMware and Parallels is a bit useless, though some things work surprisingly well (on a top of the line imac) Hellgate London worked ok.. Team Fortress 2 is playable but not great. You're much *much* better off using Crossover Games for the games that it supports though.
I used to be a parallels guy but their support for the Bootcamp/virtual thing has always been a bit screwy, and VMware seems to have marched ahead in performance on my machines.
They aren't really like wine.. Crossover is a modified Wine, virtualisation is a different thing for somewhat different uses, and with much greater compatibility than Wine.
Hey Mixel, thanks for the GREAT reply, and pointers as to where I can read more about the two different tecs? I knen crossover was a modified wine, but I thought it was only for linuxes.
I'm confused, as I'm not seeing the benefits people have mentioned.
I switched from Parallels 3.0 build 5608 to Fusion 2.0 and have found performance to be sub par. Both my OSX and XP vm are slower now. Under parallels most definately my XP vm was more snappier.
Am I doing something wrong? Should I do a clean install of Leopard and try again with Fusion, really dissapointed so far.
I switched from Parallels 3.0 build 5608 to Fusion 2.0 and have found performance to be sub par. Both my OSX and XP vm are slower now. Under parallels most definately my XP vm was more snappier.
Am I doing something wrong? Should I do a clean install of Leopard and try again with Fusion, really dissapointed so far.
I'm confused, as I'm not seeing the benefits people have mentioned.
I switched from Parallels 3.0 build 5608 to Fusion 2.0 and have found performance to be sub par. Both my OSX and XP vm are slower now. Under parallels most definately my XP vm was more snappier.
Am I doing something wrong? Should I do a clean install of Leopard and try again with Fusion, really dissapointed so far.
I think it's very subjective. I've used them both and too find Parallels faster than VMWare. Others will say the opposite. Try them both and use the one that works best for you.
I wait for a Crossover type function in either that will run ANY Windows program without booting the VM!
Reading all the comments about Fusion being better makes me want to switch but I can't just yet. Unfortunately for me, Fusion keeps interfering with the install of my school's exam software and I can't have that happening.
I'm gonna sit back and hope that Parallels catches up.
Gooooooooo Team Parallels (at least for another year).
I'm gonna sit back and hope that Parallels catches up.
Gooooooooo Team Parallels (at least for another year).
Fusion review, plus some bonus comments about product activation and WINE vs. virtual
In Parallels, you have to configure this in the VM settings from the host OS side of things (Mac OS). In Fusion, you can configure this manually in Windows in the network adapter properties, assuming Fusion doesn't reconfigure this automatically for you (I could swear I've seen it do that at least once, but don't recall off the top of my head whether this is reliable).
On the other hand, virtualization takes advantage of the CPU's ability to emulate a complete computer. The virtualization software isn't trivial to write either, but it's probably somewhat simpler than trying to rewrite Windows from scratch, and once it's been written, you can run any operating system on it that is supported on the virtualized hardware. When you use a VM to run Windows, you are running the _actual_ Windows operating system, and so you get 100% feature compatibility (modulo driver support, of course...as is the case on any OS, if you don't have the drivers to support the hardware or a certain API, something still won't run).
By the way, having had a few days to test out the Fusion 2.0 trial, I can say that as much as I wish I could switch from Parallels to Fusion, it doesn't look like it's quite there yet.
My biggest complaints about Parallels: CPU usage and non-existent customer support. But feature-wise, Parallels actually does quite well. CPU usage is important for me, because I'm running it on a laptop and more CPU usage means shorter battery life. With the battery life so poor to start with, that's a critical issue for me.
Fusion does address the CPU usage issue, and their customer support couldn't possibly be worse than Parallels support. But, it doesn't have as good integration with the Mac OS (Coherence vs. Unity), and at least on my computer, start-up time for the OS is abysmal. Starting Parallels, I do occasionally get a 10-15 second period where the whole computer locks up while Parallels is doing something. But with Fusion, I always get this kind of delay, and it lasts much longer (minutes).
The other thing I've noticed is that the reaction time on the guest OS is slower under Fusion. Possibly this is related to the lower CPU utilization (so maybe there's a silver lining), but it can be very distracting. Especially in any application where I'm doing a lot of typing, the jerkiness of the response as I type is very annoying. I've seen plenty of comments from people satisfied and even impressed with the performance of Windows under Fusion, so obviously this is dependent either on personal perception, machine configuration, or some combination of the two.
One feature I miss from Parallels is being able to suspend the VM at will. In Parallels this is essential, as doing so greatly reduces the CPU usage (though, oddly enough, doesn't eliminate it altogether...why Parallels needs the CPU at all when it's not doing anything I don't know). In Fusion, this is less critical because of its lower CPU usage, but it would still be nice to have. Unfortunately, the "suspend" command is disabled when running a Boot Camp VM, and suspending from within the guest OS is unreliable. (I've been successful in suspending the process from the Unix command line, but that's a bit of a hack and it tends to confuse the GUI part of Mac OS).
Other minor irritants include less graceful handling of mouse capturing (Fusion doesn't appear to have any automatic "mouse in the window is captured" functionality) and the fact that Unity is supported only once you're logged in as a user (with Parallels, it supports displaying even the login screen under the Coherence mode). These aren't things that alone would keep me from using Fusion, but they're worth mentioning anyway.
I really wish I could switch to Fusion. Between the utter lack of customer support from Parallels, and the incredible annoyance of having bought their 2.x version 31 days before 3.0 came out and being told that I'd have to pay the same upgrade price as someone who'd bought Parallels more than a year earlier, as well as some reliability/stability issues I've had with Parallels (it's the one application most likely to cause my Mac to do a full "multi-lingual screen" crash), I'd just as soon get away from Parallels as soon as possible.
And to be sure, as compared with the 1.x Fusion demo I used, 2.0 has come a long way. It's much improved, and in fact it's obvious that for many people, it's plenty good. But my own experience is that it's not quite there yet.
On the bright side, they do offer the 30-day trial. I encourage anyone curious to go ahead, download it and check it out. If it works for you, buy it! I need VMWare to stay interested in the Fusion product so that they can keep working on getting better than Parallels so I can switch.
For what it's worth, in both Parallels and Fusion, a workaround for this that I've found works for Microsoft's Product Activation (the only hardware-based activation stuff I personally have run into) is to ensure that the virtualized ethernet adapter has the same MAC address as the actual hardware adapter.
In Parallels, you have to configure this in the VM settings from the host OS side of things (Mac OS). In Fusion, you can configure this manually in Windows in the network adapter properties, assuming Fusion doesn't reconfigure this automatically for you (I could swear I've seen it do that at least once, but don't recall off the top of my head whether this is reliable).
To elaborate on this: WINE is native on *nix OS, emulating the Windows API. It's essentially a whole new rewrite of Windows, and because of that, it supports only those features that the authors of WINE have had the resources to implement. If something is missing that an application depends on, you're SOL.
On the other hand, virtualization takes advantage of the CPU's ability to emulate a complete computer. The virtualization software isn't trivial to write either, but it's probably somewhat simpler than trying to rewrite Windows from scratch, and once it's been written, you can run any operating system on it that is supported on the virtualized hardware. When you use a VM to run Windows, you are running the _actual_ Windows operating system, and so you get 100% feature compatibility (modulo driver support, of course...as is the case on any OS, if you don't have the drivers to support the hardware or a certain API, something still won't run).
By the way, having had a few days to test out the Fusion 2.0 trial, I can say that as much as I wish I could switch from Parallels to Fusion, it doesn't look like it's quite there yet.
My biggest complaints about Parallels: CPU usage and non-existent customer support. But feature-wise, Parallels actually does quite well. CPU usage is important for me, because I'm running it on a laptop and more CPU usage means shorter battery life. With the battery life so poor to start with, that's a critical issue for me.
Fusion does address the CPU usage issue, and their customer support couldn't possibly be worse than Parallels support. But, it doesn't have as good integration with the Mac OS (Coherence vs. Unity), and at least on my computer, start-up time for the OS is abysmal. Starting Parallels, I do occasionally get a 10-15 second period where the whole computer locks up while Parallels is doing something. But with Fusion, I always get this kind of delay, and it lasts much longer (minutes).
The other thing I've noticed is that the reaction time on the guest OS is slower under Fusion. Possibly this is related to the lower CPU utilization (so maybe there's a silver lining), but it can be very distracting. Especially in any application where I'm doing a lot of typing, the jerkiness of the response as I type is very annoying. I've seen plenty of comments from people satisfied and even impressed with the performance of Windows under Fusion, so obviously this is dependent either on personal perception, machine configuration, or some combination of the two.
One feature I miss from Parallels is being able to suspend the VM at will. In Parallels this is essential, as doing so greatly reduces the CPU usage (though, oddly enough, doesn't eliminate it altogether...why Parallels needs the CPU at all when it's not doing anything I don't know). In Fusion, this is less critical because of its lower CPU usage, but it would still be nice to have. Unfortunately, the "suspend" command is disabled when running a Boot Camp VM, and suspending from within the guest OS is unreliable. (I've been successful in suspending the process from the Unix command line, but that's a bit of a hack and it tends to confuse the GUI part of Mac OS).
Other minor irritants include less graceful handling of mouse capturing (Fusion doesn't appear to have any automatic "mouse in the window is captured" functionality) and the fact that Unity is supported only once you're logged in as a user (with Parallels, it supports displaying even the login screen under the Coherence mode). These aren't things that alone would keep me from using Fusion, but they're worth mentioning anyway.
I really wish I could switch to Fusion. Between the utter lack of customer support from Parallels, and the incredible annoyance of having bought their 2.x version 31 days before 3.0 came out and being told that I'd have to pay the same upgrade price as someone who'd bought Parallels more than a year earlier, as well as some reliability/stability issues I've had with Parallels (it's the one application most likely to cause my Mac to do a full "multi-lingual screen" crash), I'd just as soon get away from Parallels as soon as possible.
And to be sure, as compared with the 1.x Fusion demo I used, 2.0 has come a long way. It's much improved, and in fact it's obvious that for many people, it's plenty good. But my own experience is that it's not quite there yet.
On the bright side, they do offer the 30-day trial. I encourage anyone curious to go ahead, download it and check it out. If it works for you, buy it! I need VMWare to stay interested in the Fusion product so that they can keep working on getting better than Parallels so I can switch.