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
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
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.
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).
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.
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!
Right now, no it doesn't. They also won't comment on upcoming features so you don't know if it will or not. If it doesn't though I believe that it will be the only one of VMware's virtualization software that doesn't so that's pretty unlikely.
It seems to pretty much be VMware Workstation on OS X so I would expect it to have pretty much the same features eventually.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
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 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.