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.'"

Competition is a GREAT thing

[Wulfstan (180404)]

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

[0racle (667029)]

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.

Re:

[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

Multi-CPU support?

[jarich (733129)]

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.

Re:

[LurkerXXX (667952)]

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

Re:Multi-CPU support?

[jarich (733129)]

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?

[Hadley (71701)]

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:

[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:

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:

[yabos (719499)]

Erm, are you saying Parallels doesn't support both cores because mine sure does.

Re:

[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.

Re:

[mithras the prophet (579978)]

The Mac version includes the Compressor, which otherwise sells separately for $50.

Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider

[2ms (232331)]

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:

[mrycar (578010)]

UGS NX is supported on OS X and Linux.

Re:

[JoshWurzel (320371)]

Um, no. AutoCAD does not even exist in the parametric 3D modelling area. That field is dominated by Pro/E, solidworks, CATIA, and UGS.

That doesn't mean that someone can't need AutoCAD and declare that the mac is insufficient because its not available, but my money says that AutoCAD will run better in emulation than the other packages simply because it doesn't have the 3D capabilities the others do.

Re:Prize goes to the 3D graphics provider

[revscat (35618)]

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.

I've run Pro/E on a Mac Pro

[JoshWurzel (320371)]

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.

Re:

[Millenniumman (924859)]

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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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

why does linux lag windows in features?

[rritterson (588983)]

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?

[che (1178)]

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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[timeOday (582209)]

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:

[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:

[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

It's compatible with the other VMWare products!

[MarcQuadra (129430)]

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:

[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.

Any news on licensing changes?

[MarcoAtWork (28889)]

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:

[Yaa 101 (664725)]

Just use the free server local host.

first comparisions

[by Anonymous Coward]

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 :-)

parallels and vmware

[christurkel (520220)]

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

[Cadallin (863437)]

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:

[Cadallin (863437)]

"2D games probably work well enough" is not true. Dosbox, as I've noted, has an absolutely lousy interface, most games will run OK, once (and if) you can get them installed and set up, and even for those that work, you have to duplicate a large part of setup every time you launch the application. However, due to their approach of duplicating dos functionality in a Window, if the game requires more obscure dos commands to perform its installation, it will barf and die. More Enterprise oriented Virtual Mac

You Are Running VMware Fusion with DEBUG option.

[horati0 (249977)]

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.

OS X in VMWare.

[MikeFM (12491)]

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

[by Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Peter Cooper (660482)]

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.

Re:

[0racle (667029)]

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.

Re:

[aaronl (43811)]

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

Re:Vista eula

[Kymermosst (33885)]

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.

Re:

[aaronl (43811)]

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.

Re:

[Overly Critical Guy (663429)]

Then be accurate and mention that Ultimate is $400 and that Home is what will be on store shelves.

Re:Vista eula

[mmeister (862972)]

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).

Re:Snapshots?

[0racle (667029)]

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.