VMware Launches 'Fusion 5' Virtualization Software, Parallels 8 Coming September 4

[CountSessine]

In a word, none.

Graphics performance and stability, especially with device sharing. Every time I've used virtual box I've had problems sharing USB devices with VMs.

I'm damned if I'm going to upgrade and I encourage everyone else to show VMWare what they think of being treated like a cash cow. If you want VMWare to treat you like Parallels and Adobe--and, truth be told, Apple--then carry on and pay them for this "upgrade". For those of us who don't want this, just vote with your wallet.

If Fusion 4 does what you want, why would you upgrade anyways? If there's something of value to you in Fusion 5, and I think there is otherwise you wouldn't post here complaining, why shouldn't VMWare and their developers get paid for creating that value?

What really annoys me is that VMWare player -- the PC version -- is free. Just like VirtualBox.

Just... say... no.

VMWare player is in no way, shape, or form equivalent to Fusion. In particular, you can't create VMs or do snapshots.

 

[50548]

So the world-class MILKERS are at it again - I bought Parallels 6 before mid-2011 just to discover that it would NOT run on ML. Absolutely atrocious customer service and ethics, as widely reported in the Parallels Forums.

VMWare doesn't seem to be different either - everyone should just download VirtualBox and forget about these annual "mandatory" upgrades.

 

[CountSessine]

So the world-class MILKERS are at it again - I bought Parallels 6 before mid-2011 just to discover that it would NOT run on ML. Absolutely atrocious customer service and ethics, as widely reported in the Parallels Forums.

VMWare doesn't seem to be different either - everyone should just download VirtualBox and forget about these annual "mandatory" upgrades.

Fusion 4 works perfectly fine for me in ML. The network editor in Fusion 5 Pro looks nice, but otherwise I don't see much reason to upgrade.

 

[Glenny2lappies]

If Fusion 4 does what you want, why would you upgrade anyways? If there's something of value to you in Fusion 5, and I think there is otherwise you wouldn't post here complaining..

I'm not complaining per-se, I'm just trying to balance all the "ooh, s'great..." people.

VMWare is one of my most important tools which I use every day for windows and web development. There's no issues with the speed provided you've stripped out the VM of all the windows cruft. Amazingly, I don't use any of the graphics capability aside from the usual OS requirements. Work isn't a game.

, why shouldn't VMWare and their developers get paid for creating that value?

They have. Three times. By a lot of people. This 'upgrade' is pretty dire up against previous releases and could even be a service pack upgrade.

VMWare player is in no way, shape, or form equivalent to Fusion. In particular, you can't create VMs or do snapshots.

Except that you can run VMs in it for free. It works quite well.

 

[babyj]

Fusion 4 works perfectly fine for me in ML. The network editor in Fusion 5 Pro looks nice, but otherwise I don't see much reason to upgrade.

There is a freeware network editor for Fusion 4, Uber Network Fuser;

http://nickapedia.com/2012/01/10/breaking-new-ground-an-uber-tool-for-the-mac/

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I believe this is a licensing thing from Apple, VMWare actually "forgot" to block Snow Leopard in one of the VMWare 4 versions. I stuck with that version for quite a while (after installing Snow Leopard Client) and tried launching the Snow Leopard VM in Fusion 5 and it won't even let it run now (even though it is already installed) it gets about 1/2 through the boot process the comes up with this error:

What about the server version of Snow Leopard? I thought it was just the standard versions that would not install? A server version would still solve the problem for running Rosetta, etc., although I don't know if you could still buy it from Apple. One would think Apple would see the value to its users in being able to run Snow Leopard on newer machines in a virtual machine to keep older software running. A virtualized OS9 would be pretty cool for that matter. I would think Apple would jump at cooperating with such a product given it would keep their installed software base higher and yet not interfere with their newer operating systems at all. A lot of people bemoaned losing classic in Leopard and then Rosetta with Lion and I think some Intel binary games will not work with Lion or Mountain Lion.

 

[D.T.]

So the world-class MILKERS are at it again - I bought Parallels 6 before mid-2011 just to discover that it would NOT run on ML. Absolutely atrocious customer service and ethics, as widely reported in the Parallels Forums.

Well, you could update your PD6 now, and get an upgrade all the way up to PD8 (unless I've missed some fine print that upgrades aren't eligible for the free PD8 upgrade?). So you'd be getting a 2 version jump for the upgrade price.

 

[DrStern]

I upgraded today - Next time Parallels

I updated today. Bad enough they shake me down for $49, then they have the temerity to inform me that my download is under review to confirm eligibility, and to send them a message if I do not get an update IN THREE DAYS.

Bull. I want to know if they are going to wait three days to charge my credit card. I can certainly see why their market share is shrinking.

 

[arkmannj]

What about the server version of Snow Leopard? I thought it was just the standard versions that would not install? A server version would still solve the problem for running Rosetta, etc., although I don't know if you could still buy it from Apple. One would think Apple would see the value to its users in being able to run Snow Leopard on newer machines in a virtual machine to keep older software running. A virtualized OS9 would be pretty cool for that matter. I would think Apple would jump at cooperating with such a product given it would keep their installed software base higher and yet not interfere with their newer operating systems at all. A lot of people bemoaned losing classic in Leopard and then Rosetta with Lion and I think some Intel binary games will not work with Lion or Mountain Lion.

Server version of 10.5 & 10.6 will install and run fine in VMWare.

 

[henryrodrigo]

Ah, crap. I bought an update to Parallels 7 a couple of days ago, since v6 was apparently incompatible with Mountain Lion, so I'm thinking that probably means I won't get the upgrade to Parallels 8.

This shouldn´t be a surprise, since Parallels loves to charge their costumers every year...!

 

[arkmannj]

The upgrade from Fusion 4 to for $50 was for Fusion 5 Pro also. I didn't expect that but I'll take it. Get it now before the offer expires -- or is found to be in error. My guess is that this upgrade to Pro for $50 is an error.

Parallels to Fusion "Upgrade" is 50.00 and for Pro also. (did it with a Parallels 4 key)

 

[dyn]

VMWare player is in no way, shape, or form equivalent to Fusion. In particular, you can't create VMs or do snapshots.

That is incorrect as of VMware Player 3. We are now at 5 so this has been the case for some years now! You can create vm's (as much as you like) and do snapshots. The snapshots are limited to 1 per vm iirc but you can't create them easily. It offers all you need if you want to do some basic stuff. If you want to do a lot more than you need Workstation.
Why do I say Workstation? Because Player is only available for Windows and Linux as is Workstation. For Mac there is only 1 application which is Fusion (and it now comes in 2 flavours: Standard and Professional with the latter adding some options that are only a concern for enterprise use).

What VMware should have done from the beginning is porting both Player and Workstation to Mac. They never ever should have created Fusion. Where it is going now means Player and Workstation anyway.

 

[cntwtfrmynwmbp]

I will be using Fusion 4 until it is unsupported - then I will switch to Virtualbox.

Enough with that rip off!

 

[Major.Robto]

I can not wait till its leaked on the internet.

I have been wating to have windows xp Live messenger again! Thank you!

 

[Glenny2lappies]

Just been through the VMWare propaganda pages: http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/features.html

Can't find anything in there that's remotely interesting. Sorry, but 1.4x performance increase in booting, etc. is pointless. It only takes 10 seconds as it is. If it takes 7 seconds... pah.

Oh, I also don't run the Lion service pack either. I was taken for a ride on the Lion upgrade and I'm not falling for it again.

So VMWare, you're not getting my money. I so hope that other people do the same too.

 

[cerote]

I can not wait till its leaked on the internet.

I have been wating to have windows xp Live messenger again! Thank you!

 

[stukick]

Where's Windows ME?

 

[Zimmy68]

Parallels to Fusion "Upgrade" is 50.00 and for Pro also. (did it with a Parallels 4 key)

I think anything to Fusion 5 is $50.

Let's call it what it is, a $50 a year subscription service.

They have lost me as a customer.

I love how Apple can charge $20 for a full blown OS upgrade but VMWare wants $50.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Indeed it is, I pointed out the EULA is different. Server explicitly allows for virtualization, Client only at Lion and above and only on Fusion.

No one cares.

 

[ratfink]

I bought VMWare Fusion 4 on July 24th. I'm awesome.

 

[adbe]

I think anything to Fusion 5 is $50.

Let's call it what it is, a $50 a year subscription service.

Not really, because 4 didn't stop working with ML.

----------

No one cares.

Damn right. I don't need three Macs on my desk just to build code for 10.4 onwards. Even if I kill Tiger support, I still need a Snow Leopard box and a Mountain Lion box, which is stupid. I don't want to develop on Server, and nor should I need to pay for it (not least because I can't even buy SL Server now). By contrast my Mac is happily able to run VMs for Windows 7, Vista, and XP, and soon Windows 8 allowing me to develop for every relevant Windows OS version without any aggravation.

I have full OSX Tiger, and Leopard licenses (they came with Macs now deceased), which will be running on Apple branded gear as per the EULA.

I'm going to end up making a Hackintosh VM, which is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[throAU]

VMWare needs a cheaper slimmed down version of Fusion for those of us who DON'T give a crap about all the Windows integration.

Because Fusion is so expensive??

If you're too cheap for fusion, run virtualbox.

 

[Ledgem]

So the world-class MILKERS are at it again - I bought Parallels 6 before mid-2011 just to discover that it would NOT run on ML. Absolutely atrocious customer service and ethics, as widely reported in the Parallels Forums.

VMWare doesn't seem to be different either - everyone should just download VirtualBox and forget about these annual "mandatory" upgrades.

VMWare didn't used to be quite so bad. I bought into Fusion at version 1.0, and if I remember right, the upgrade to version 2.0 was free for those of us who had been with them from the beginning. There was a nice discount in going from version 2.0 to 3.0 - if I remember right, it cost $20. Their upgrade cycle was slower than Parallels', too.

They garnered some ill will with Fusion 4. They offered an "introductory price" that was way higher than the upgrade cost in going from 2.0 to 3.0, and that was offered to everyone. Customer loyalty was not rewarded. With the release of Fusion 5, it looks like they're shifting to the aggressive upgrade track that Parallels has taken. I don't like the look of it, especially with their new, high price.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

What VMware should have done from the beginning is porting both Player and Workstation to Mac. They never ever should have created Fusion. Where it is going now means Player and Workstation anyway.

*lol*

They created Fusion, because they know Mac users like integrated products.

 

[AidenShaw]

I love how Apple can charge $20 for a full blown OS upgrade but VMWare wants $50.

How many thousands of dollars did you give Apple in order to buy a system that would take the $20 upgrade? (And how recently, since many Apples sold only a few years ago won't run 10.7 or 10.8?)

Do you see the difference between a hardware vendor and a software house?