This thread is about people using a virtualisation product called VMware Fusion. It runs virtual computers. Windows is just one of the many operating systems you can install in a vm. I'm actually using it more for OS X than for Windows. I'm not impressed with this release nor with Parallels 9. Costly and hardly any feature worth spending that amount of money on. The previous version is fine.
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 6 Brings Updated Virtualization Support for OS X Mavericks and Windows 8.1
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pi is a fact
My job requires that I access 2 proprietary internet explorer only websites. (and a 3rd one, but much less frequently)
The reason it isn't a fact, it is much closer to an opinion, is because expense is a personal truth. For me, mac world saves me lots of time due to my workflow and utilization of applescripts..I used Windows for 9 years..adding $50 /year for virtual windows apps, plus the cost of windows (i've only upgraded once from XP to 7 64 bit) is not expensive, but a cost effective and much lower than my time/efficiency costs in windows. Plus the included software on a mac is far superior than windows....for me, this is a fact, for me, for my usage.
'Expensive' is a personal truth. A fact for them, perhaps, but not a fact for all.
Now, the problems I'm having today with running VMWare Fusion 6 are a PITA, but, much less than the magnitude of problems the crept into Windows during my 9 years of work use. registry issues come to mind. (been using windows for personal for longer than 9 years).
Edit: I also run Ubuntu.
----------
someone posted a fix on the VM communities thread for the crashing issue.
Here's how I fixed it:
1. Uninstalled it by dragging "VMWare Fusion" folder to the trash.
2. Restart machine
3. Delete preferences folder "/Library/Preferences/VMware Fusion"
4. Empty trash
5. Re-installed Fusion 6
Do these, in this exact order.
My job requires that I access 2 proprietary internet explorer only websites. (and a 3rd one, but much less frequently)
The reason it isn't a fact, it is much closer to an opinion, is because expense is a personal truth. For me, mac world saves me lots of time due to my workflow and utilization of applescripts..I used Windows for 9 years..adding $50 /year for virtual windows apps, plus the cost of windows (i've only upgraded once from XP to 7 64 bit) is not expensive, but a cost effective and much lower than my time/efficiency costs in windows. Plus the included software on a mac is far superior than windows....for me, this is a fact, for me, for my usage.
'Expensive' is a personal truth. A fact for them, perhaps, but not a fact for all.
Now, the problems I'm having today with running VMWare Fusion 6 are a PITA, but, much less than the magnitude of problems the crept into Windows during my 9 years of work use. registry issues come to mind. (been using windows for personal for longer than 9 years).
Edit: I also run Ubuntu.
----------
someone posted a fix on the VM communities thread for the crashing issue.
Here's how I fixed it:
1. Uninstalled it by dragging "VMWare Fusion" folder to the trash.
2. Restart machine
3. Delete preferences folder "/Library/Preferences/VMware Fusion"
4. Empty trash
5. Re-installed Fusion 6
Do these, in this exact order.
I guess I've always used a VM to run RD. Never really looked at anything else. I'll give those a shot.
"more than 50 new features"?
Is it just me, or does their feature list seem like a lame rehash of last year's version?
- updated support for current guest/host OS (incl. learning center)
- better performance (faster / using less resources)
- Retina support
- easier to use
Or am I missing something really important/cool here?
(I've still been on 4.x, so I upgrading looks worthwhile to me)
Is it just me, or does their feature list seem like a lame rehash of last year's version?
- updated support for current guest/host OS (incl. learning center)
- better performance (faster / using less resources)
- Retina support
- easier to use
Or am I missing something really important/cool here?
(I've still been on 4.x, so I upgrading looks worthwhile to me)
I upgrade every other year. I'm on v4 and will now get v6. As long as they continue to let you upgrade and skip a release id be happy. It's when they stop I'll be upset.
----------
I like the idea I can spin up a VM as I wish. Oh that one got corrupted.. No prob, let's get a new one
----------
I like the idea I can spin up a VM as I wish. Oh that one got corrupted.. No prob, let's get a new one
Last I checked, VMWare had at least one big feature missing from VB:
Full D3D/DX9 support for graphics.
If you need that, it is a deal breaker.
For me, we use VMWare Workstation images at work so I need Fusion at home to be able to run them locally. VMWare has free 'player' software for Windows but not for OSX at this time.
No idea. But I'm guessing you're going to tell me someday and conclude the statement with a definitive point in hope to prove my post wrong?
That is fair enough. Although if I were using DirectX features I'd probably most likely use Bootcamp so I can get the full performance of my machine.
You mean this post? That is fair enough. You could have just pointed me to the post instead of being an evasive smart ass about it.
Painless upgrade here
I was running Fusion Pro 5. The upgrade to Fusion Pro 6 was totally painless. I chose the "lite" version without all the McAfee crap. My WinXP VM booted right up without issue.
An update to VMWare Tools is needed, but that process has been considerably cleaned up. It worked first time, at least... that's new! Still a reboot of XP is needed.
Unlike a lot of posters here, I don't resent the annual re-up, nor do I resent there being two versions. This is complex software with some intensive competition and a rapidly-changing host environment. I want VMWare to continue offering cutting-edge capabilities together with stability, and that costs money. So, I pay my upgrade fee and wish them well.
I do, however, wish that Fusion "Pro" was fully equivalent to the high-end Workstation version they offer for Windows, especially in Workstation's ability to package virtual machine appliances. Unless things have changed with version 6, it's just not equivalent. They also badly need a Player for OS X. It's indefensible that they have Player for Windows and Player for Linux but no Player for OS X.
I was running Fusion Pro 5. The upgrade to Fusion Pro 6 was totally painless. I chose the "lite" version without all the McAfee crap. My WinXP VM booted right up without issue.
An update to VMWare Tools is needed, but that process has been considerably cleaned up. It worked first time, at least... that's new! Still a reboot of XP is needed.
Unlike a lot of posters here, I don't resent the annual re-up, nor do I resent there being two versions. This is complex software with some intensive competition and a rapidly-changing host environment. I want VMWare to continue offering cutting-edge capabilities together with stability, and that costs money. So, I pay my upgrade fee and wish them well.
I do, however, wish that Fusion "Pro" was fully equivalent to the high-end Workstation version they offer for Windows, especially in Workstation's ability to package virtual machine appliances. Unless things have changed with version 6, it's just not equivalent. They also badly need a Player for OS X. It's indefensible that they have Player for Windows and Player for Linux but no Player for OS X.
I just noticed this, but..:
With their current pricing, does upgrade eligibility really matter anymore?
New license: $59.99 / EUR 53.95 (for Europe)
Upgrade license: $49.99 / EUR 44.95
That's a whopping 10 bucks savings on the upgrade.
They might just as well drop their upgrade pricing rather than having it irk me...
----------
Just for starters:
- You can use multiple OS at the same time, without reboot
- create/rever to to snapshots of (VM) OS & application state, before something goes/went awry
These two are big enough.
By recommending people save money by using free software? Yes, I'd say that was fairly smart and a smart move for anyone who follows the advice.
Unless there was a feature of Fusion/Parallels you relied on that VirtualBox doesn't offer. All I was saying was that there was free options out there and I didn't understand why people felt the need to purchase virtualisation software.
YOU were the one who responded with the smart ass question as though I should have read through every single post before responding. All that was needed was a link to your post or an explanation as to why you pay for virtualisation software. Not a vague hinting question and wild forum-goose-chase. It's like you people want to start arguments just because I suggested alternate software that doesn't conform to your standards.
Lame.
Bootcamp is great if your Windows instance absolutely needs all the resources of your machine, as in gaming.
However, today's personal computers are so powerful that you can get amazing performance running Windows (or Linux, or what-have-you) at the same time as OS X. There are many advantages to doing so, not least being that you can hot-key between OS X and Windows (or Linux or...). It's like having a desk with two computers on it.
Or more: my rMBP is powerful enough to run several virtual machines at the same time. So I can have Windows XP, Windows 7, any of several flavors of Linux, all accessible simultaneously.
In my work it's necessary that I have reasonably quick and portable access to different versions of various OSes with different versions of various software. Virtual machines make that possible. I have a nice USB 3 external drive with my less-used VMs on it; I just velcro it to the back of my rMBP's display when I need it. Connected via USB 3 or Thunderbolt, the VMs run at native speed. (For external storage, USB 3 and Thunderbolt are pretty evenly matched, as the drive is the bottleneck in that case.) If I'm using a particular VM frequently for a project or something, I'll copy it to my rMBP's SSD. Currently I have four VMs resident on the SSD.
Within the last hour I've had Win7, WinXP and Linux Mint all running at the same time as OS X. Can't do that with Boot Camp.
If I don't need a VM that's currently on my SSD, I can just copy it to my external drive and reclaim the disk space in my laptop. Can't do that with Boot Camp either.
If I screw up a VM, I can just pull an earlier version from my Time Machine backups. Can't do that with Boot Camp-- lots of folks don't realize it until it's too late, but Time Machine doesn't touch the Boot Camp partition. Or, I can make snapshots of my VMs and revert to them if desired. (They take up beaucoup disk space, though.)
I have VirtualBox too. It has improved greatly in recent years. Its USB handling still lags behind Fusion's, but it may be fine for your purposes and is free. If you're not a gamer, I'd recommend it over Boot Camp for running Windows or Linux.
If you had made your suggestion before my previous post preempting it, I would have given a full answer. The thread is only in its third page.
I registered the exact Geekbench results with Fusion Version 6 as I did with Version 5.0.3!
I made sure to have the same number of cores 4, and ram available to version 6 of Fusion.
Although this is pretty lame I will say that it seems much more responsive to switching tabs in IE, switching apps, entering new text in a new browser tab while 2 others are loading...I'm guessing Geekbench doesn't really capture the virtual machine improvements....idk
Because rebooting your computer all the time can be a pain in the ass. I use bootcamp when I want to play games, but for getting work done I boot the bootcamp partition in VMware.
It's like VMWare have learned from Parallels or Adobe: offer next to nothing and charge like it's going out of fashion for a so-called upgrade.
Thanks for screwing your loyal customers.
----------
There's a reason why it was painless... there's very little that's new.
There's absolutely no way I'm going to keep purchasing this same piece of software on a yearly basis just so I can get support for the next OS X milestone. Quite frankly, there are not enough new "features" to justify the price tag.
This may be the year I switch back to VirtualBox.
This may be the year I switch back to VirtualBox.
haha i'm just busting your chops
----------
I just noticed this, but..:
With their current pricing, does upgrade eligibility really matter anymore?
New license: $59.99 / EUR 53.95 (for Europe)
Upgrade license: $49.99 / EUR 44.95
That's a whopping 10 bucks savings on the upgrade.
They might just as well drop their upgrade pricing rather than having it irk me...
----------
Just for starters:
- You can use multiple OS at the same time, without reboot
- create/rever to to snapshots of (VM) OS & application state, before something goes/went awry
These two are big enough.
$10 is still $10 savings.