Have you created the Boot Camp partition yet? You don't do that from inside of VMWare. You want to open the Boot Camp Assistant program inside the Utilities folder (at least, that's what it's called under Snow Leopard - might be different in Lion) and do that first.
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 Now Allows Virtualization of Mac OS X Leopard and Snow Leopard [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Have you created the Boot Camp partition yet? You don't do that from inside of VMWare. You want to open the Boot Camp Assistant program inside the Utilities folder (at least, that's what it's called under Snow Leopard - might be different in Lion) and do that first.
VMWare has a prettier interface. The other differences between the two only affect hardcore users. VMWare Fusion is for people who virtualise all day long.
Help, please
I could really use this to run legacy software. But when I try to install Snow Leopard (from a retail CD disk), there is a loooong pause about 1/5 of the way through the installation and then I am told the installation is imipossible "on this Mac" because the necessary support files aren't available. If anybody can explain what's happening and suggest a workaround, please e-mail me at danasutton@mac.com
I could really use this to run legacy software. But when I try to install Snow Leopard (from a retail CD disk), there is a loooong pause about 1/5 of the way through the installation and then I am told the installation is imipossible "on this Mac" because the necessary support files aren't available. If anybody can explain what's happening and suggest a workaround, please e-mail me at danasutton@mac.com
I don't see why they would disapprove of this. It makes life for developers and many other users a lot easier.
can someone with a top of the line mac pro run lion inside lion using vmware and the snow leopard inside lion then windows 7 ultimate inside snow leopard the with windows xp mode run windows xp inside windows 7 then with run ubuntu inside windows xp?
We have to go deeper.
I virtualise all day long on Virtualbox with narry a problem. My current server runs 3 instances using VBoxHeadless for my Web/DB/Monitoring services on my home network, and it's all configurable from the command line using VBoxManage, not to mention a great web interface if I feel lazy. I also have a VM setup on my Mac for VPN for my job, so my work tools don't mess around with my Mac, and the office's policies don't disrupt my Mac's networking (so I can torrent, browse, skype, MSN while working from home).
As for UI, seeing how the virtualization package is completely out of the way, what's "prettier" about the UI ? The UI is your guest operating system.
VirtualBox is a nice way to save 49$ for people in the know. VMWare Fusion only gives you the feeling you have something better because you had to pay for it. You know what they say about one being born every minute...
----------
They'll never approve publicly but will never do anything to stop it. This isn't something new anyhow, we've been able to do it for quite a while on all virtualisation packages. It's just new that it's a GUI option in VMWare. I dunno why this deserved front page news.
can someone with a top of the line mac pro run lion inside lion using vmware and the snow leopard inside lion then windows 7 ultimate inside snow leopard the with windows xp mode run windows xp inside windows 7 then with run ubuntu inside windows xp?
It's confusing enough to have OS 9 run on Snow Leopard running on Lion.
It's confusing enough to have OS 9 run on Snow Leopard running on Lion.
It's funny how some of you are now in 2011 thinking of this stuff when it was all the rage back in 1999... You're all about 12 years (if not much more) too late with your Macception "ideas".
Feel better now?
No, I feel bad being on a "tech" forum where the "tech interested" people basically have no idea about the "tech industry".
But them's the ropes for being on Macrumors, one of the most tech illiterate tech forum on the Internet.
No, I feel bad being on a "tech" forum where the "tech interested" people basically have no idea about the "tech industry".
But them's the ropes for being on Macrumors, one of the most tech illiterate tech forum on the Internet.
At least we have you.
No, I feel bad being on a "tech" forum where the "tech interested" people basically have no idea about the "tech industry".
But them's the ropes for being on Macrumors, one of the most tech illiterate tech forum on the Internet.
You don't feel bad at all...
You relish the opportunity to whine all day about how stupid other posters are, and give your own fragile ego a nice polish at the same time!
There's plenty of more techy forums out there... but you'd probably get your ass handed to you if you went and posted on them.
Okay, look. You know how people give us crap for being Mac users? And they say crap like, "Oh, why do you pay $1000 for a MacBook when you can get a Windows netbook for $300 that's just as good?"
That's what you sound like right now, broseph. And it *is* pretty grating. So you're satisfied with VirtualBox; congratulations. Some of us, however, find the peace of mind of available tech support and the Mac-centric focus of VMWare Fusion worth the $50 or so it costs for a license. That doesn't make us dumb any more than it makes us dumb for buying a Mac in the first place instead of a cheap, crappy Windows box.
$50 is nothing for an app you use every day. VMWare not only has a great app with good support - but they've got the backing of a large community, and their virtual appliance marketplace is a fantastic way to pick up a pre-packaged environment (if you need a quick pre-configured web server, OS, dev environment etc).
The virtual appliance stuff is worth the cost of entrance alone.
Nope, I can hang fine on those too. In fact I do... (heck, I could even run with the people of comp.lang.c in the days and if you ever subscribe there, you'd know that you had to have your copy of the ANSI C89 draft to even start replying there).
And don't get me wrong, plenty of great technical people on Macrumors. They just get drowned out by some of the less savvy posters here which makes sifting through threads drudge work sometimes. If really there was no value to the forum, I wouldn't waste time here.
I especially like the programming section, plenty of great technical people there. Too bad it doesn't translate too well in the News discussion section.
----------
Uh ? Why are you comparing the Mac hardware's value above and beyond the 300$ Windows netbook to the 50$ of "features" that VMWare doesn't give you on top of VirtualBox ?
I wouldn't use a 300$ Windows netbook, I need the features of my MacBook Air for 1200$. Hence why I bought my MacBook Air. But VMWare fusion for 50$ ? Why, all the features I need and use are there in VirtualBox. For 0$.
can someone with a top of the line mac pro run lion inside lion using vmware and the snow leopard inside lion then windows 7 ultimate inside snow leopard the with windows xp mode run windows xp inside windows 7 then with run ubuntu inside windows xp?
Won't work - XP mode requires a system with hardware-assisted virtualization. ("VT-x" on Intel)
VMware uses VT-x for the host Hypervisor/VMM, but the emulated CPUs do not have VT-x. "XP mode" cannot run.
Does VirtualBox give you accelerated 3D graphics with hardware video decoding?
Attachments
People in the know will choose whatever virtualisation software works for their needs. VirtualBox and Parallels Desktop will have to import VMware vm's where as Fusion will simply start them. If you work with other VMware products this is easier. If you run more exotic operating systems it is Fusion you want because it has the best and most widespread OS support. VirtualBox is a good second since it is good in supporting Linux and the FreeBSD project is working with them to get FreeBSD to work properly as both the host and guest OS. Parallels scores points when running Windows because it is fast which helps with gaming. VirtualBox might be free but it can't do some things the other two can (try dragging files from and to the vm window) and has some serious issues with usb even if you install the usb extension pack whereas both Parallels and VMware work without problems.
The reason why I use VMware Fusion:
1. it runs FreeBSD, Linux, Windows, OpenBSD, Solaris without any problems; Parallels and VirtualBox have problems with these, the vm's crash quite a lot
2. it has no problems with usb and asks if I want to use the device in the vm or on my Mac; Parallels does the same, VirtualBox is a PITA with usb and not recommended when you want to use this (too often it does not recognise the usb device hooked to the vm)
3. easily exchange vm's between other VMware products such as ESXi, Player and Workstation; these are very commonly used products unlike Parallels and VirtualBox and importing vm's means converting them which takes time and is annoying
4. since 4.0 it is an app which means that all the services needed to run the vm's will only run when the app runs, not when you boot the machine like Parallels and VirtualBox
5. speed: it is faster than VirtualBox in all areas (GUI as well, I find that to be a bit sluggish in VirtualBox but it isn't that bad) and can match Parallels regarding Windows; if you use 32 bit vm's Fusion will use its own softwarebased vt-x which is very solid and fast, faster than VirtualBox and Parallels; when using 64 bit vt-x is a requirement in any virtualisation application btw
6. very clear GUI, better than Parallels (which can be a bit too much) and heaps better than VirtualBox. It is much easier to attach an iso or dmg file to the vm in Fusion than it is in VirtualBox. VirtualBox requires you to add it to some library, even if you are going to use it only once, after doing that you can attach it to the vm.
7. it has good (online) support: they have their own VMware forums and twitteraccount where they respond very quickly to questions. Also the support on other forums is quite good for VMware products. The fun part in this is that all of the VMware virtualisation products share the same base. Whatever goes for Workstation, Player and Server also goes for Fusion and vice versa. Parallels is quite sucky with the support, lots of people move to VirtualBox or Fusion because of that. VirtualBox has the standard Linux community support but it is owned by Oracle which means that there is no support from them.
8. everything is 64 bit
9. networking is solid: stable and fast although Parallels has more options for networking in this area. VirtualBox has good networking stuff as well but it can be a bit of PITA because there isn't much logic in the namescheming
10. I can encrypt vm's whenever that is necessary; none of the others can
11. Love the new snapshotting GUI in Fusion 4, makes much more sense and it is very clean (you can even branch)
12. select the boot device from the settings instead of mistreating the keyboard to get into the vm's bios so you can set the boot device, haven't seen that in VirtualBox, can't remember it seeing in Parallels
13. 3D graphics support, although Parallels is doing a better job for most applications (Fusion is better for a couple of apps, mostly in the CAD area)
14. Fusion has the best I/O performance, especially when you use an ssd (memory and I/O are the most important things for most virtualisation apps)
15. Fusion 4 now plays nicely with Time Machine which is quite difficult for virtualisation apps because of the size of the virtual disks
16. price tag: while VirtualBox has the best one (it is free), Fusion does a good job too. I'm using it since the very first beta version back in 2006. In total I have not paid more than 100 dollars for version 1 to the current 4.1. Parallels would have cost me for more than that.
The only things I liked about VirtualBox was its price and being able to virtualise 10.5 and 10.6. That last part is now gone since 4.1 and the pricing of Fusion was never that much of a problem, especially since there are many special deals, promos, etc. that can cut the price in half.
All in all I think Fusion should be very aware of VirtualBox. If it improves the usb support and makes the GUI much more simpler it will be a very very competitive product! Parallels Desktop is a nice product if you run Windows since it brings lots of features and speed that the other two don't have. I really like that things are very close, keeps them sharp and innovation going.
Apparently nobody in this thread has even taken the time to read the originating article at Macworld. An Apple representative confirms that the license for both 10.5 and 10.6 allows for virtualisation. The 10.7 license is just more specific about it. It is the last paragraph:
----------
By default there is no audio in 10.5 and 10.6 but there is a way you can get it to work in 10.6 (no idea if it works in 10.5 as well, since these two are nearly identical I'd suspect it will). In the VMware forums there is more info about the matter: Fusion 4.1 and Mac OS 10.6 sound and resolution issues. Tried what it says there and it works in my case.
Yes.
----------
Not my experience at all. I've even run Haiku OS on Virtualbox without any problem.
----------
You missed the "Server" keyword. This is their old position, it was adopted in 2008 :
http://blogs.vmware.com/vmtn/2008/01/virtual-leopa-1.html
This is talking about the non-Server version, of which the Macworld piece mentions Apple has not changed their position on. The Apple representative only confirmed the old position : You can virtualise OS X leopard Server and Snow Leopard Server.
I did indeed, thanks for pointing that out though!
Still leaves us with how to interpret how to view the Apple branded computer thing (running a vm on a Mac is running it on an Apple branded computer vs it is running in a vm which isn't an Apple branded computer).