Slashdot Mirror
VMware Fusion goes Beta
Rahul writes "Fusion is a new VMware product that enables Intel-based Macs to run Windows and Linux in virtual machines on Mac OS X. The Mac virtualization market is presently dominated by Parallels and it will be worth watching if VMware can gain the mindshare despite its late entry. Ars Technica reports: 'The nice thing about VMWare Fusion is that it already supports some of the stuff that the Parallels Beta2 released yesterday just added, such as USB 2.0 and most USB devices, CD/DVD drive support, and drag-and-drop between environments (unless the guest environment is Linux, that is). You can also run multiple Fusion environments at once or assign multiple processors to your virtual machine(s), if you're into that sort of thing.'"
Although I guess I can sympathize with Parallels, who have spotted a niche and gone for it, I think that competition is great. It will be particularly interesting to see whether or not VMWare charge for this or whether it's just a freebie a la VMWare Player on the PC - I suppose it's likely they'll charge for it though. In any case, I'll be buying it, along with my Parallels license. And hey, may the best product win.
--- Nick, hard at work
I've downloaded it and have a VMWare image downloading...
The Parallels tools have things like image import that VMWare is missing though.
Agile Artisans
I would like to have a Mac, yet I am a mechanical engineer who works with CAD all the time. None of the industry standard CAD softwares are available for Mac. Thus, even if I had a Mac, I would have to spend more time booted into Windows than OSX. Whoever can provide 3D acceleration for PC apps in OSX will part the clouds for a whole new throng of would-be Mac users who are trapped in Windows.
I use Parallels, but only for Linux (MATLAB, which is not OS X/Intel native yet). I've noticed that the features available for virtualizing Windows are far beyond those available for Linux, and that it's only getting worse. According to the article summary, the same is true for VMWare.
For example, I cannot:
-Install Parallels tools for linux, so everytime I suspend my VM, the clock freezes and ends up several days behind schedule when I resume
-Use the nifty new feature that eliminates the Windows desktop and instead just shows the application window on the OS X desktop
-Copy and paste directly between machines (I have to rsync between hosts, though because the VM IP is changing, is only convenient in one direction)
-Easily change resolutions of the Linux VM.
The list goes on.
Now, is this because Windows is just what everyone is running in a VM, so all of the resources are going toward it, or is there some inherent difficulty in replicating these features in Linux. As an aside, couldn't someone in the OSS community (I am not talented enough, sorry) program Linux-based additions to faciliate some of those features, above (like the clock sync)?
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
What I really wanted was compatibility with VMWare's other apps, and they delivered. I can justify a Mac at my desk if I can author sessions that eventually live up on our server farm.
Interoperability is HUGE when it comes to virtualization. There's a lot of value to being able to 'build' a server in my bedroom and upload it to bigger metal when I get to work. Parallels didn't have that, VMWare does. I'm going with VMWare.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
"You can also run multiple Fusion environments at once or assign multiple processors to your virtual machine(s), if you're into that sort of thing.'"
Yes I am. Don't tell anyone.
vmware is one of the few companies where a bought and paid for vmware workstation license is strictly platform related, if you buy a linux license you can't use it on windows and vice-versa (in this case on mac as well). I would like to be able to run vmware workstation regardless of what base OS I am using...
-- the cake is a lie
Very nice entry to this capability. MHO: I don't want to buy, run or support Windows, I just want to run Windows apps under OS X. Crossover (Wine port) is where more effort should go.
Most of the stuff on
I have both the latest Parallels Beta and the fusion beta running with win2k.
:-)
- Fusion seems a bit slower/sluggish from a user perspective, but that might be due to driver issues.
- Fusion does not handle dual headed machines in full screen mode as well as Parallels, as the fusion full screen mode is designed for single headed situations (main menu handling)
- Fusion handles Networking much better than Parallels. E.g. my cisco VPN works out of the box in shared mode. I never got it to work with Parallels, athough they claim to support it.
- General Driver support is better with Parallels, except networking
- Additional tool support like drive compression is better with Parallels
- Parallels support Boot Camp partitions.
I probably will go with Fusion unless Parallels gets their networking situation straight, but tiime will tell
You must be new here! You've posted to the wrong article.
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
Still can not use basic things such as a usb modem in parallels while even the pre-release from vmware could use them with no problems. For my use right now vmware has the lead.
Where the hell did this idea start? Who is it that can't read? HOME versions of Vista have an EULA that prohibits running them in Virtualization, Business and Ultimate however do not. Microsoft has taken the position that home users are not all that interested in advanced features while Enthusiasts and Corporations are.
Besides, 3d acceleration is not included in Fusion, though that might change, and is only experimental in their more mature Workstation product.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Its too bad vista bans running windows on a virtual machine. I imagine this solution will be outdated quick as soon as directx10 games become standard.
No. What you mention only applies to the Vista Home edition license. The Vista Ultimate version specifically gives permission to use it in a virtual machine. Both of these are "Vista".
I don't like Microsoft either, but at least I try to badmouth them accurately.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Parallells is slick andif you run one of their supported OSes, it is nice. However, VMWare supports a much wider range of OSes. No one has built, let's say, SkyOS images for Parallels but they have for VMWare.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
When is somebody going to do this? Hell, when is somebody going to fork Dosbox and turn it into something usable? Dosbox has an immense amount of cool technical work in it, but the UI absolutely unusable. Why can't we have an actual Virtual Machine environment that can boot DOS from a disk image, and provide excellent sound support, and CGA/EGA/VGA/VESA graphics support? And *gasp* how about joystick support on par with most NES, SNES, etc emulators? Furthermore, how about some sensible CPU speed scaling? Like every other emulator for other platforms has available.
And we all want to rush out and drop $400 on a copy of Vista Ultimate, rather than $200 for Home. They're the same program. MS went out of their way to make Windows more expensive for people that want to emulate. There is *NO* reason for the anti-virtualization terms in those EULAs other than making it more expensive to emulate rather than run native.
I didn't need "permission" to run XP Home in a VM, but because of that license change, now I do with Vista.
Yes, *HOME* versions of Vista have an even more restrictive EULA than XP Home. Now you have to spend $400 to run Vista in VMware or Parallels, rather than $200. MS took the position that they can make virtualization less attractive by arbitrarily making it more expensive. With that change, now you can buy a computer with a copy of Vista Home for less than a copy of Vista Ultimate to use in Parallels.
How can you dilute yourself by pretending there is some difference between the OS in Home versus Ultimate that makes one more suited for virtualization? They are the *same* kernel, with the *same* drivers. It's all about screwing you for more money by making the EULA worse.
I dont know about Parallels as I have never used it but VMWare is leaps and bounds ahead of other products out there. (Virtual PC)
Doing development and prototyping systems, I couldnt live without VMWare.. and now I can coppy the VM's to my Mac if I need to.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Then be accurate and mention that Ultimate is $400 and that Home is what will be on store shelves.
"Sufferin' succotash."
A more accurate description is that Microsoft charges you a premium for running Vista on a Virtual Machine.
Ironically, one great use for virtual machines (in the software development world) is to test with different configurations, which you'll be able to do with all versions except HOME. You'll have to run that on a separate PC.
In general, MS is full of crap with their licensing approach here. I need neither the features or functionality of Business or Ultimate, other than I want to run it on a VM on my Mac (vs. a Bootcamp approach). It won't cause me to pay more for a product I don't need or want, instead, I'll stick with XP until they get their head out of their ass or I can kiss that crappy Window OS off once and for all (given MS recent missteps, that could been sooner than expected).
I dont know about Parallels as I have never used it but VMWare is leaps and bounds ahead of other products out there.
So, you don't know about the current market leader, yet you forcefully claim that VMWare is "leaps and bounds ahead of other products out there".
Interesting use of logic.
Awesome. I think more companies should pop up windows that tell the user their software will run slower and there is nothing they can do about it. Maybe throw in a clip of Nelson haw-hawing?
I know, I know, public beta. It's a joke, son.
The neutrality of this sig is disputed.
While it's definitely a cool application, it is worth noting that those of us with PowerPC-based Macintoshes are left in the lurch on this one (some reasons for which should be obvious).
These stories are free but worth money.
I had the fortune to being able to test Parallels and Pro/Engineer on my father's Dual-2.66 Ghz Quad Core mac pro. It has 5 gigs of ram, a radeon X1900 with 512 MB of ram, and a 23" cinema display.
;) I plan to keep testing it, though, because its important to me and I have the resources to do it. For some reason, no one else does.
Let me tell you how it behaves: Not great.
I'd imagine for small changes and assemblies its probably usable, but I pulled up my largest project to really put it through its paces. This is an assembly with hundreds of parts in it, mostly sheetmetal. Parallels seriously needs 3D acceleration. It is also worth noting that the only graphics card on any mac that is listed as supported by Pro/E (see PTC's website) is the Quadro FX 4500, which is a $1700 BTO option.
I was able to select and redefine features, but screen regens were horribly slow. Pan/Zoom/Rotate was totally unavailable despite the multi-button mouse and Parallels wouldn't recognize my spaceball at all (yes, I installed the driver software).
I wasn't able to get boot camp running because the X1900 + 23" display does not work with boot camp presently (apparently this is a widespread issue discussed on the Apple forums).
I'll be testing it on my macbook pro (core 2 duo 2.33 ghz) next week in both boot camp and parallels, though I don't expect much performance. Our Pro/E guru at work tells me that the graphics card is going to be the biggest problem for performance if its not an officially-supported card (and the X1600 on my macbook isn't on that list either).
Despite all the performance lags, I was so excited just to be running Pro/E on a mac that I imagine it can only get better from here. And if not...I don't really want to do work at home anyway!
Can anyone who has used Fusion tell me whether it supports Workstation's snapshot functionality? That is, IMHO, the greatest feature *ever*; an OS-level undo. I just know I'm going to need this trying to install Oracle 10g on a ZFS partition on Solaris 10.
Oh, don't worry - Ultimate will be on store shelves too. Just as XP Pro was.
I question if that restriction is enforcable. If I buy a license for Vista Home then I will run that license on whatever hardware (real or virtual) that I choose. If VMWare provides a virtual computer that Vista Home cannot differentiate from a real computer then I am not going to let that idiotic clause in the EULA stop me.
She's kind of old... but I'd probably shag her for the novelty of it!
Not only that, but we're talking about running Vista on a Mac. The Vista Home license only forbids using the SAME license for both host and guest OS. But if you're on a Mac, guess what... you're not using it for the host OS.
Now, is this because Windows is just what everyone is running in a VM, so all of the resources are going toward it, or is there some inherent difficulty in replicating these features in Linux.
This is a more than fair question, because Parallels users have been complaining, as a google search shows. Linux is open source down to its skivvies, and it should follow that it should be easier to understand/tie into/work with the kernel, develop kernel modules if necessary, etc.
Yet a closed OS like Windows has numerous advanced integration features available for it that are sorely lacking in Linux. What gives? I understand development getting priority on Windows since the market share is bigger, but...I didn't expect it to be so lopsided, or perhaps some sort of community effort (though it bugs me when the community is forced to "do" a company's "job" for them.)
The thread I cited above mentions one good point: Parallels has been rushing to get marketshare precisely because VMware was highly likely to jump into the pool. They're been shipping for a while now, are showing great progress and promise. The author points out that Microsoft has decided not to play, leaving VMware as the 500lb gorilla.
Hopefully once Parallels is comfy in their market share, we'll see more support for Linux. Or, perhaps VMware will take advantage of Parallels' deficiencies and provide good Linux support. Either way- competition will hopefully fix this problem!
Please help metamoderate.
As a developer, I get perverse joy in having the user tied up and put in a corner in such a manner. :-)
"You *WILL* run this software in the manner which *I* determine, you got me boy?!?"
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Actually, this is the first public release of the beta but various earlier releases have been out for a couple months now. I've been working with it with both Ubuntu and Gentoo guests and have been pretty impressed (though I can't say I've ever opened a new release of a VMWare product and not been impressed). These guys do good work. It's surprisingly Mac-like for a company that hasn't had previous releases on the Mac platform. In daily use so far I haven't had any real problems to speak of and won't be surprised to see it released fairly soon. It's missing a few of the features I rely on in the Workstation product but it's still an easy choice over Parallels, Q, or anything else I've seen.
This sig intentionally left blank.
I like being able to run OS X in VMWare. Thank gawd for hacked copies since Apple refuses to sell OS X for this use and you have to jump through hoops to make it work. Makes it handy to test out programs and web sites you're developing.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
- http://compfusion.blogspot.com/2006/12/good-day
. html (Tech Lead)
- http://infusion.vox.com/
(- A friend who wants to give them a virtual pat on the back)I wonder how hard a virtualization app is to write. I imagine there's some relatively juicy stuff in the core, and then a bunch of less-critical stuff that plugs into that ... not completely unlike, say, Firefox. Also like a web browser, I would think that supporting everybody's stuff (in this case, drivers) would be the exhausting part, and that's what open-source can be great at (see: Linux).
Now that the world is practically standardized on a class of CPUs (64-bit, multi-core x86 processors with some virtualization-friendly features), I wonder...
- How hard would it be to write a virtualization core?
- Could most of it be shared among the various host/guest combinations?
- Are there any patent issues that prevent one from embarking on such a project?
- Could any of it be shared among different processors, even? (e.g., enabling PPC Linux users to run x86 Linux binaries)
- Would this be valuable enough to open-source players (like Redhat) to help with such a beast?
- Has anybody started on an open-source VMWare/Parallels competitor yet?
I see lots of "can it do XYZ?" queries here, and many of them would be no-brainers for some random guy to hack up, if the product in question was open-source.
If your development process is so serious that you need to test on all of the little, minutely different versions of Vista, then the odds are good that you've already got an MSDN subscription. The versions of Vista available on MSDN are under a different license, and are virtualizable without violating any of the legal bits.
Read up!
Stop the brainwash
If price was the subject of the discussion, then I would have.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
I know OS X has some protection features to stop it running (unaltered) under VMs. That's fine. I don't want to run OS X under Windows. However, it would be useful to be able to run a second copy of OS X under a virtualized environment on OS X. Why isn't this possible? Couldn't Parallels and/or VMWare provide access through to whatever piece of Apple hardware does the "Yes, this Apple hardware" security check?
I don't really know how it works internally, but it seems insane you can't virtualize the host OS yet you can virtualize almost any other.
If only more people would just stick with XP.
If everyone told Dell, HP etc forget Vista just preload XP then we might be able to weaken the MS monopoly.
Once the API stays static for long enough, WINE etc can start getting more and more compatible, then MS could end up like a BIOS manufacturer, or like Intel when they tried to sell the Itanic vs AMD's 64 bit x86.
If the API gets hijacked from the hands of MS, stuff like games might run on OSX, Linux and Windows without modification.
It is in the interest of MS to keep changing the API. Not too much and not too fast - like boiling a frog.
I work as a so-called network consultant, and several of my regular clients are Mac based. After the Intel Duo laptops came out and a certain amount of pleading and begging, I traded in my Dell for a Macbook -- partly with the idea that VMWare for OS X would make it much easier.
Now that it's here, the reality is less than exciting. Bootcamp works really well, and for the most part either I can get by in OS X or I *need* XP, so having both simultaneous doesn't really matter that much. Disk space on a Macbook is also something of a premium, even with a 100GB disk -- VMs eat disk for lunch, and dragging out externals isn't always a practical option for me.
The lack of the ability to use a Bootcamp partition really drags on Fusion's practicality for me -- maintaining two XP setups is a pain and a huge suck on disk space.
The lack of OS X VMs is also a big disappointment. From what I've read on the VMWare forums, they're playing this sort of as an Apple legal department issue. Lame. I would have MUCH rather see them be more aggressive, "We have it working in the lab but Apple won't approve it".
Either way, I'm finding it hard to get excited. If I was desktop based, it'd be easier to get interested since disk, RAM and CPU power would be better distributed.
The lack of the ability to use a Bootcamp partition really drags on Fusion's practicality for me -- maintaining two XP setups is a pain and a huge suck on disk space.
I don't know if you've looked into it, but Parallels does this already.
They did this with Server when it was in beta. The idea being that they were offering this free so they could gather bug data from a large pool of users. It got turned off when product got close to gold so they could test performance. Some intrepid users figured out how to turn it off with a little manipulation (rename two folders and change one config file line). It makes a pretty big difference in performance.
I suggest checking the VMWare forums about it.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Luckily, no one needs Vista at all. How many apps are Vista-only today? How many would be if people stick with XP? Of course, the windows community will all shoot themselves in the foot and upgrade in a knee jerk, developers will follow, and then you'll be stuck.
I am so grateful I was able to move to OSX and linux I can hardly describe the feeling.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
My understanding of this is that it's still a Beta feature, plus I've been holding out somewhat to run VMWare since I already have a large number of existing VMs.
So they want to collect data, and if you want to run the beta, that's what you have to put up with. Understandable, but utterly stupid.
The reason it is stupid is that they are coming into a market already dominated by someone else. If they were coming in with a product that out-featured Parallels, having a temporarily crippled beta would be acceptable, but they haven't done that.
I think VMware isn't accustomed to being the underdog. In that position, you need to offer more.
I'm sure VMware will overtake Parallels: they have the resources, the experience and the user base on other platforms. But this is a lousy way to start.
-- Tony Lawrence