Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

VMware Fusion goes Beta 153

Posted by Zonk from the toys-for-christmas dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

VMware Fusion Goes Beta More

VMware Fusion Goes Beta

Comments Filter:
  • 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.

    • Re:Competition is a GREAT thing (Score:5, Informative)

      by 0racle ( 667029 ) on Friday December 22, 2006 @07:15PM (#17343960)
      It's set up like their workstation product (not free) and in the FAQ for the release they state that a final price has not been set. During the VMWare Server beta it was made clear Server was going to be free after the beta for both personal and commercial use.
    • I'm planning on going to a Macbook sometime in 2007, given the number of ready-made images for VMWare out there, and the fact that my Windows VM has a lot of stuff for work, I will probably go that route, whether free or not. Even though the windows integration features in the Parallels beta are compelling.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by aztracker1 ( 702135 )
        I will say that VMWare will probably beat out parallels on pricing, depending on how they target their offering. Given that VMWare Server, and VMWare Player are free, and that they make their big money on the big server and workstation (targeting pro/developer) versions.

        What would be *REALLY* cool, is if Apple would release a version of OSX Server that will run under VMWare, and for VMWare to have an enterprise version for OSX Server. Buying and running OSX Server on non-apple hardware would be way coo

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jdray ( 645332 )

          I don't really see Apple letting OSX run on non-Apple hardware while Jobs is at the helm. We would conceivably see VMWare Server for OSX letting people run multiple OSX images simultaneously. Of course, then you'd need some really fat XServe machines to host a bunch of virtual machines, which would be nice. I'm still expecting some sort of hypervisor to come with Leopard, which would allow you to partition a box into a number of simultaneous OSes a la AIX on Power5. We've consolidated a bunch machines

  • Multi-CPU support? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jarich ( 733129 ) on Friday December 22, 2006 @07:09PM (#17343908) Homepage Journal
    Parallels runs great and the windowed mode is awesome... but if this version of VM Ware actually supports both of the cores on my MBP, it might make a huge performance improvement.

    I've downloaded it and have a VMWare image downloading...

    The Parallels tools have things like image import that VMWare is missing though.

    • So exactly what is image import? I can't find it searching through the user manual from parallels website.

      • Re:Multi-CPU support? (Score:5, Informative)

        by jarich ( 733129 ) on Friday December 22, 2006 @08:15PM (#17344434) Homepage Journal
        I'll have to dig it out (and I'm on a different computer right now).

        It's a tool for importing a VMWare image, or an image from a real Windows box.

        VMWare is coming late to the game, but this is a feature they'll have to match.

        • Re:Multi-CPU support? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Hadley ( 71701 ) on Friday December 22, 2006 @10:34PM (#17345314)
          VMware is not at all late to the game - they have been doing x86 virtualization really well for almost 10 years.

          To create a VMware image from a real Windows box, use the VMware Converter [vmware.com] (a free download).

          There is also a free importer that converts images from other formats (not sure if it supports parallels).

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jarich ( 733129 )
            VMware is not at all late to the game - they have been doing x86 virtualization really well for almost 10 years.

            Absolutely correct. I was thinking late to the game on the Intel Mac platform. Sorry... I should've been more specific. They are quite late on Intel Macs, but as another poster noted, competition is a good thing.

          • They're late to the Mac alright. Given that Parallels was out three months after the first Intel Macs shipped and VMWare took nearly a year? Given their long history, it should have been out even faster, not slower.

            However, that being said, they've made me very happy with what they've put out. It respects Mac interface conventions, puts files where they belong, and even loads and unloads its kernel extensions on the fly.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 )
        Heres something I found in the furums [parallels.com]:

        Hello all!

        Now you can migrate your Windows PC, VMware or Virtual PC Virtual Machines to Parallels Virtual Machines.

        You will need Parallels Transporter Beta for this. The Mac version is bundled into Parallels Desktop for Mac Beta Build 3036. The Windows version containing both Parallels Transporter and Parallels Transporter Agent can be downloaded from here.

        1. Usage models.

        * Migrate remote Windows PC over network directly to VM on your Mac/PC
        1) Install Parallels Transpor

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      See the free VMware Converter: http://www.vmware.com/products/beta/converter/ [vmware.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by yabos ( 719499 )
      Erm, are you saying Parallels doesn't support both cores because mine sure does.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jarich ( 733129 )
        You sure? I could've sworn the docs said the client OS only sees a single CPU. It might appear to spread the load over both cores (for a GUI cpu load tool), but that doesn't mean it's using them both. Have you seen both cores pegged by Parallels? I haven't.

        Also, from a quick search...

        This link says it doesn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_virtua l _machines/ [wikipedia.org]

        This link says This may be, at least in part, because the Parallels software doesn't support SMP for the virtualized instance of Wind

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by yabos ( 719499 )
          I guess you're right. Mine says I have a Core2Duo so I thought it saw both cores, but I just downloaded CPU-Z and it shows only one core.
      • Yes, he is saying that because no, it does not. Parallels will only use at most one core for virtualizing an OS. Got a quad-core Mac Pro? You're only getting one of those for Windows with Parallels. Fusion will let you use up to two.

        Mod parent down for simply being wrong.

  • Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 2ms ( 232331 ) on Friday December 22, 2006 @07:11PM (#17343924)
    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mrycar ( 578010 )
      UGS NX is supported on OS X and Linux.

    • Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider (Score:5, Informative)

      by revscat ( 35618 ) on Friday December 22, 2006 @07:44PM (#17344208) Journal

      Inside Mac Games had an interview [insidemacgames.com] recently with a PR guy from Parallels where he says "The goal is to have OpenGL and DirectX support in our next version, which should be in beta around the turn of the year."

      You know, I'd really be curious to see how some of the CAD programs behave on a PowerMac with Parallels. Those are really fast machines. It would be an expensive experiment, but you're not the first CAD user I've heard mention this. A friend of mine works at an architecture firm, and he also mentioned the lack of CAD software available on the Mac as being the main reason he couldn't get one.

      • Not to pick nits, but parallels cannot run on a power mac. Power mac's are all powerpc machines - hence the "power" in their name. Apple has dropped the power monicker from all their product lines - the high end desktop mac is now known as "mac pro".

        • Power mac's are all powerpc machines - hence the "power" in their name.
          Apple used Power in it's computers' names before they used powerpc processors.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Pfhor ( 40220 )
            Nope, you are wrong. Power Mac was first introduced with the powerpc line of desktop computers.

            PowerBook was a term apple was using for their laptops, which did not start with powerpc chips.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by dangitman ( 862676 )

          Power mac's are all powerpc machines - hence the "power" in their name.

          To pick nits, Powermacs are not named because of PowerPC. Just like Powerbooks are not named because of PPC (there were Powerbooks long before the PPC chip). They are so named because they are "power user" machines. iMacs also had PowerPC chips in them, but were not called "iPowerMacs." Xserves had PPC chips in them, but were not name Xpowerservers.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by diamondsw ( 685967 )
            Not to nitpick the nitpick, but the Power Mac was originally names as such because of the PowerPC chip. The first models were the 6100, 7100, and 8100, which used the PowerPC 601 in 1994. The PowerBook, however, did predate the PowerPC chip by at least a year or two.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by dangitman ( 862676 )

              Not to nitpick the nitpick, but the Power Mac was originally names as such because of the PowerPC chip.

              I don't think so. After all, there were Performas made soon after the Powermac, that used the PPC chip. Not that anybody actually bought PPC Performas, but they existed. I think the name was a rather nice coincidence, but was mostly intended to maintain the lineage that started with the Powerbook. When the original Powerbook was released, mobile computing was considered to be a very advanced thing - for "power" users. I believe the intention was to refer to a powerful computer - not the architecture of th

              • Powerbook was introduced long before PowerPC, true.

                But the first PowerPC Macs were called "Power Macintosh". I think that name directly reflects PowerPC. There were no non-PowerPC Power Macs.

                The Mac "Quadra" got its name from the "4" in "68040", its processor. (First Macs had the 68000, and the Mac II had the 68020).

                Performas were Macs for the home, bundled with home software. Apple kept using the Performa name on newer PowerPC machines. In most cases, Performas were just other models with a different
      • Push for DirectX 9.0C support. A lesser DirectX by itself won't play most games.

      • I've run Pro/E on a Mac Pro (Score:5, Informative)

        by JoshWurzel ( 320371 ) on Friday December 22, 2006 @09:21PM (#17344876) Homepage
        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.

        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! ;) 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.
    • What about VectorWorks? No need for fancy emulation software when it runs native ;) However I don't know how great it's mechanical face is, I only use it for Architecture.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by C. Alan ( 623148 )
      I run Autocad Land development desktop on Parallels on my Imac. I do mainly 2d stuff, but it works great.

  • why does linux lag windows in features? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rritterson ( 588983 ) * on Friday December 22, 2006 @07:11PM (#17343928)
    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)?

    • Re:why does linux lag windows in features? (Score:5, Informative)

      by che ( 1178 ) on Friday December 22, 2006 @07:15PM (#17343964) Homepage
      Actually, VMware Fusion ships with VMware Tools for Linux, Solaris, NetWare, and Windows.

      You can copy and paste and drag and drop to and from Linux, Solaris, and Windows, and easily change the resolution of the Linux VM.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MarcQuadra ( 129430 ) *
      I'd venture to say that it's because there are so many options when you're running on linux. How many different versions of X, how many different window managers, and how many libraries for drawing to the screen (Xlib, GTK+1, GTK+2, Qt, XVideo, etc.) would they have to write hooks for?

      I'm a linux guy myself, and I love the choices I get (just switched window managers recently, in fact), but that's why you won't get those kind of features when you're running it in a VM session.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by lachlan76 ( 770870 )
        Are you talking about having windows on the main desktop? The window manager would go on the host in this case, and you can just use the normal X11 server to do this. Just set up an SSH tunnel to the VM, or run it through the VM's network adaptor.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by aaronl ( 43811 )
        VMware doesn't have a problem with doing these things, and it's largely because it isn't nearly as complicated as you believe. There is no need to write hooks for any of the X toolkits. You write a video driver for x.org and then you are done. If the idea of updating it for new versions is annoying, then provide specs for the virtualized video API that Parallels offers, and contribute it to x.org. Either way, it isn't a big deal.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gordyf ( 23004 )
          I don't think it's this simple for some of the things that Parallels has been doing in its recent betas. They have provided a mode that hides all of Windows except for the Windows apps you're using, and lists those apps in the Dock and in the alt-tab list. The effect is that the virtualized Windows machine disappears, and you're left with Windows apps running alongside Mac apps. It's very slick.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by aaronl ( 43811 )
            If you forward the X connection to the host desktop using regular X protocol in a tunnel from the VM, you can let the host system take care of window collection. Systems like NCDWare and Hummingbird eXceed have been doing this for quite some time. They would have to write a decent X server for the OSX desktop, but it isn't that bad. The hard part is making drag and drop, and the clipboard, work well.

            It is a very slick thing that they're doing with Windows apps. Quite a bit of overhead, but newer Macs ar
    • Is Linux really falling behind Windows in terms of VMWare support? The blurb only mentioned drag and drop. The things you mentioned:

      IME changing resolutions on Linux is likely to crash or be unavailable even if you're NOT in a VM. It requires the RandR extention which is relatively recent and not widely well supported. Still I'm disappointed if the VMWare X driver doesn't do it.

      Copy and paste between a Linux host and a Windows guest works for me. This of course with all the usual caveats for copy a

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jrockway ( 229604 )
      Parallels is pretty new to the market, so I doubt anyone is using it to run linux. VMWare doesn't have the clock skew problem. (And in fact, it makes a great server environment.)

      > -Use the nifty new feature that eliminates the Windows desktop and instead just shows the application window on the OS X desktop

      This is really a nasty hack-on-a-hack for Windows. With Linux + OS X, just fire up Apple's X server and tell your Linux image that the X server is at "yourmac:0", and then start up your X session.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jarich ( 733129 )

        Parallels is pretty new to the market, so I doubt anyone is using it to run linux.

        You serious? I've been running it for at least six months. Linux runs great... I turned a dual Opteron desktop into a server and moved my work to Parallels on my MBP because it was close enough to the performance. And a lot more portable. :)

        I know half a dozen people using Linux as well... don't get me wrong... I'm glad to see VMWare finally making it to Intel Macs, but I doubt they'd be here now if Parallels wasn't drivin

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) *

          You serious? I've been running it for at least six months. Linux runs great...

          Still, support for each OS under parallels seems to be a unique case in terms of features. You can drag stuff under XP, but not 98, where you have to use an odd network configuration to share files instead. The clock skews across some linux restarts, but not XP, etc. Parallels tools available, or not. It's kind of annoying when you're trying to develop and test things across multiple environments; I'd value uniformity more t

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by caseih ( 160668 )
      If you're trying to run a small set of applications in Linux, why are you running a desktop environment and doing things the MS Windows way? Don't boot linux up to graphical mode. Just leave it in text mode. Run parallels minimized to the dock. Then a quick script can ssh into the linux machine, run the program, and dump the display out to Apple's wonderful, integrated X11 server, giving you the integration feature you want (clipboard and everything). While there's not yet a shared folder thing for Lin

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cortana ( 588495 )
      I don't understand the complaint about eliminating the desktop and changing the display resolution. On GNU/Linux you have X11... there is no need to emulate a physical display attached to the machine in the first place!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by wrf3 ( 314267 )
      Parent is not flamebait. The title is misleading. Parent is not a comparison of features of native Linux vs. Windows, it is a comparison of Linux under Parallels vs. Windows under Parallels.
      I have the same issues running Fedora Core 5 under Parallels (couldn't get FC6 to work, despite how-to notes on the net). No copy & paste, no sharing of folders (except via network), no resizing of the VM window, etc. (Note: I just installed the latest Parallels beta and haven't run Linux yet...)

    • 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 [parallels.com], 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 ha

    • There is a beta OS X version of Matlab available. I got a copy from them for free here:
      http://www.mathworks.com/support/faq/macintel.html [mathworks.com]

      A bit buggy, but matlab code executes fine on my MBP. I sent in a bug report and corresponded directly with a developer about the problem (print preview has problems), which was an interesting experience for me as a student.

  • It's compatible with the other VMWare products! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MarcQuadra ( 129430 ) * on Friday December 22, 2006 @07:18PM (#17343982)
    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.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by dreddnott ( 555950 )
      This is exactly why I think the "mindshare" comment is off-base, a completely misused cliche if there ever was one. VMWare is a respectable product for other platforms that's been around for quite a while, not exactly IBM but still a very fancy tool in the general virtualisation market. This is more like a big fancy MMORPG that was formerly PC-only migrating to the Apple Macintosh platform. The Mac users are happy about the game but overjoyed about being able to play it with a much larger market, the PC use

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 0racle ( 667029 )
      The only thing missing as far as integration with other VMware products is the ability to use Fusion to talk to VMware Server. That would have made my day. As it is I'm either stuck RDPing into a Windows machine or using X over ssh from a Linux machine when dealing with misbehaving VM's.

    • 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.

      Strangly enough, I did just this with a Parallels VM two nights ago, and it worked like a champ.

      You may not know it, but Parallels has options for OS-X, Windows and Linux. The Parallels VMs are interoperable between all the platforms, although the VM settings do need a bit of tweaking when switching between Windows and O

  • 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...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Yaa 101 ( 664725 )
      Just use the free server local host.
      • that's what I'm doing at the moment (I have a license for linux, but had to switch to windows as the host OS) but I do miss workstation, which I think is better than server.
        • Big time - the ability to have multiple snapshots alone makes Workstation worth the money over Server if you're a developer, but Server is awfully nice in that you don't have to run the VMs on your local box.
          • yeah, I just wish vmware didn't do the 'you want to run it on a different platform? too bad, you have to buy it all over again' thing :(
  • 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.

  • first comparisions (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 22, 2006 @07:42PM (#17344192)
    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 :-)
  • 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.

  • parallels and vmware (Score:3, Interesting)

    by christurkel ( 520220 ) on Friday December 22, 2006 @08:06PM (#17344348) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • I want a gaming designed VM (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cadallin ( 863437 ) on Friday December 22, 2006 @08:16PM (#17344436)
    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 ) *
      I guess around the time someone cares. You seem to care, why don't you do it? Or pay someone to do it? I use dosbox to run Syndicate [insomnia.org] to test if I'm doing the right thing in FreeSynd [sf.net] and it works good enough for me. It works good enough for a lot of people, that's why it doesn't get much improvement.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MikeFM ( 12491 )
      VMWare is supposed to be working on 3D drivers for use inside the VM. I hope they get it working as it'd be nice to be able to run games in VMWare w/ Win2k instead of having to dual-boot. It probably doesn't matter to me though as I'm refussing to ever use Vista and I imagine most new PC games will soon be for Vista.
      • I'd be satisfied by features a lot less complex. My favorite games are generally 2D. My favorite games that aren't I don't play anymore because they were multiplayer. But as far as 3D virtualization, I really don't see what's taken it so damn long. I don't see what would make that feature much more complex than "wrappers" for 3dFX Glide, which intercept the Glide calls and convert them to OpenGL or Direct3D. Wrappers that do that have been around for YEARS.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MikeFM ( 12491 )
          I can play 2D games in VMWare and thye seem to work fine.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kscguru ( 551278 )
          Apples and oranges. Glide is ANCIENT - it predates hardware T&L, it's before vertex shaders and pixel shaders. Newer DirectX and OpenGL exposes a lot more hardware-level detail that has to be translated back and forth. And it has to be translation - you can't directly pass through the card, the host and guest would end up fighting each other for control and instantly kill the machine.

  • You Are Running VMware Fusion with DEBUG option. (Score:5, Funny)

    by horati0 ( 249977 ) on Friday December 22, 2006 @08:59PM (#17344720) Journal
    As soon as I start a virtual machine, I get:

    Please be advised that the additional logging and error checking enabled by this option result [sic] in substantially slower execution. This option cannot be disabled on this build of VMware Fusion.
    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.
    • 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?!?"
    • 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.
  • 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.

    • Re:Snapshots? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by 0racle ( 667029 ) on Friday December 22, 2006 @11:49PM (#17345772)
      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.
    • Doesn't seem the beta does, dunno about the finished product. I agree that snapshots rule though.

  • OS X in VMWare. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MikeFM ( 12491 ) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @12:23AM (#17345958) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Blogs by the VMware engineers (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 23, 2006 @01:06AM (#17346142)
    For anyone interested, two blogs by engineers on VMware Fusion:
    • 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)

  • Why can't OS X based VMWare of Parallels run OS X? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Peter Cooper ( 660482 ) on Saturday December 23, 2006 @08:30AM (#17347548) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • 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 Macb
      • 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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by swb ( 14022 )
          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.

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close