What is Digg?77 Comments
- taco767, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24"You are coming to a sad realization, cancel or allow?"
- kris33, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17Funny how pure advertising got to the front page. Well, I digged it myself :)
- wonderchemist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17It's 1.0 now.
- kris33, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Yeah. I actually get better performance with VMware than Parallels. No technical problems too. I love it and would recommend you to try the trial.
- CJinNC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13I tried Fusion it on my wife's macbook and in less than a week...ditched my corp issued dell, bought a macbook and loaded vpn dialer and outlook in a VM pointed it to my work exchange server and game over. Works like a dream.
- petekazanjy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16This demo of VMware Fusion does a great job of showing off the "Unity" feature: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIApJMzGzDQ
- DrivinWest, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I used to run Parallels while Fusion was still in Beta. Overall, Parallels 2 was pretty good but not great. Parallels 3 may have introduced more features than 2 (and indeed Fusion 1.0), but it's a buggy mess.
Fusion 1.0 is rock solid, fast, and the support is top-notch.
I paid for both. I use Fusion. What's that tell you? - Brutusfly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Some things in that list can be done on a Mac without any Virtual Machine. Run Linux apps? Run Duke Nukem? Tony Hawk?
- warped, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10It supports bootcamp. But its a pain because I think windows reloads all of its drives each time you switch the launching from bootcamp to virtual but at least its only the first time.
** The best reason to use Fusion over Parallels is that it supports VMWare images from ESXServer / VMWorkstation. I took my important *work* image over from my vista box and it loads just fine on the Mac. - SkyPimp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9For those that use Parallels Desktop, which one do you think is better?
- terranaut, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11You mean the one that is embedded in TFA?
- GilliamOS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8RTFA.
- rajanyadav, on 10/10/2007, -11/+19I work at this Great Company and everything they do is amazing :)
Hence Dugg - infoshowzen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6
VMWare Fusion rocks.
I am a PC -> Mac convert, and Fusion has made it super easy for me to use all of my Windows apps that are required for current projects.
For example, I run a complete Visual Studio Studio 2005 environment inside Fusion, on a MacBook Pro. That includes SQL Server 2005 Enterprise and a variety of required tools and plugins. SQL Server is always on, along with ScaleOut StateServer (kind of like memcached for .net). All of these are very memory intensive. I have 756MB going to the VM. I removed most TSR apps to keep the overhead low.
I never have a problem with any applications -- ever. It is as fast or faster than my older laptop (less memory and CPU on the old one of course).
I imaged my old Windows laptop (with VMWare Converter), restored it in Fusion. Done. No hassles. All my preferences saved. Everything just as when I left the PC.
Kudos to VMWare. They are doing great things for the server, and now the desktop. Since they have such a history with virtualization and they are about to go IPO in a big way, I think Parallels, and for other reasons including this, Windows, are going to have trouble retaining marketshare. - DonCarcharo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I purchased Parallels and had been using it since the first beta but was never really happy with the product. CPU load was high, I'd gotten a few random panics that I suspected were related and product support was nonexistent. When version 3 came around I was about to purchase it out of desperation (or just give up and buy a spare PC) when I stumbled on the Fusion beta.
Boy am I glad I did. Fusion is MUCH more stable than Parallels, performance is better, CPU load is lower and suddenly I had access to a wide variety of virtual machines. There's no comparing the two products really. Parallels feels like a hack to get Windows running on your Mac while Fusion seems more like a true solution. - kris33, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It supports DirectX up to 8.1
- vault, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Considering switching from Parallels but every article I've read about that reports weaker performance from VMware. I'm somewhat unhappy with Parallels though given their terrible support and the kernel panic I got upgrading...any diggers switched and felt like they made the right decision?
- Balanced, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Don't believe so. At least, not easily. Virtualization doesn't deal with multiple processor architectures in this way, so it wouldn't run the PowerPC MacOS you'd need for MacOS 9 apps.
You may need to seriously consider an upgrade path for Nisus. - stealth658, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5yep
http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/features.html
"Already running Windows XP on your Mac using Apple Boot Camp? No problem. VMware Fusion automatically detects your Boot Camp partition and lets you access it as a virtual machine, giving you the flexibility to run Windows XP alone or side-by-side with Mac OS X." - Mejogid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I used to use parallels but have converted to vmware. Better performance, less of a slow down to OS X, indescribably superior linux support, unity, far less buggy (I was getting kernel panics after the odd update with parallels), better support, virtual appliances etc. The list goes on.
- ahuxley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Parallels beta was a pain. Had way too many lock ups needing power offs.
So I got vmware - No problems with the beta or 1.0 on my Mac Pro - schoate09, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4VMware>Parallels.
- adstretch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3But does it support using your bootcamp partition for your VM, cuz sometimes you dont want a VM (like when you need firewire). Don't really need 2 windows installs on my machine, one is more than enough thank you.
- ahuxley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3 I got vmware - No problems with the beta or 1.0 on my Mac Pro vs the lock up of death on Parallels
- DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I've used both extensively and I prefer Fusion. It just feels more solid and quicker.
- heiroglyph, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4He was honest and didn't try to put anything over on us.
There is nothing wrong with being proud of your work.
I don't like all the services they run on Windows hosts, but otherwise they make great products. - istokj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3check out sheepshaver for os 9
http://gwenole.beauchesne.info/en/projects/sheepshaver - colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4WINE is not Windows.
Oooooooooo. I think that's a new acronym for WINE. WINW- WINW is not Windows. - n3bulous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Switched from parallels to fusion after having a lot of high temps when running a windows instance that was just sitting still. Fusion has been much better though I've been running an ubuntu instance instead. Since uninstalling the parallels service I've been crash free for a while, to boot.
- dbr_onix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The damned 'TFA' abbreviation is as bad as 'lol' - infact, worse - Atleast 'lol' has some reasoning behind it, 'TFA' seems to be used primarily for smart-ass replies which could quite easily use 'the article'
..sorry, I'm in a ranting mood.
To be slightly more constructive:
In Parallels, I have a Debian virtual machine, that has no X11 installed (just the runlevel3 command line), even with nothing running, the CPU usage of the Parallels process is almost 25%, which seems excessive..
Does anyone know if VMWare is 'better' in this regard?
Infact, I have the VMWare Fusion Version 1.0b4 installed (It's a month or two old), sitting idle at the Debian install language-selection-menu, it's using about 10% CPU.. Still seems a little high. Running VMWare Workstation on Windows - even with a full Windows XP Pro install - I don't recall it using that much CPU? Although 10% isn't much (the OS X Activity monitor, or the top command uses about the same..)
Although, does anyone know if the newer versions of VMWare Fusion introduce less overhead CPU-wise? - erics4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I absolutely second Mejogid. And let me add that Parallels support is non-existent
- reichg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3" If you’re jonesing for some Duke Nukem or Tony Hawk, fire up VMware Fusion." VMware is right, why would i want to run 10 year old games in bootcamp when i could run them in their virtual machine. Also why would I want to use the same partition of windows for bootcamp and windows ala parallels, when i can have one of each with VMware?
- RyomaNagare, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I do run autocad 2006, on my parallels on my 1 gig mac-book, it runs quite well, except with the most heavy files over 40MB or so... have not tried vmware yet,
I do know solid works is really much more processor hungry than autocad which is more of a memory devourer, - eponymous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2#11. Play Arcanum
- LowRentDiggs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I do hate Windows but I still have to use it to debug for the ***** and most widely used browser. Now I have a gig using .net and have to use it for Visual Studio, uggh.
- counterpart9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i'm interested to hear from anyone that has run solidworks or another another cpu heavy program using VMWare fusion, on a new mac. especially compared to running it thru boot camp.
- fanclerks, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Doubtful. It emulates x86, not PPC.
- websyndicate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Fusion is by far superior to Parallels the most recent betas along with 3.0 have been horrible. FYI it sets up Hardware Profiles for when you use boot camp to run in Fusion
- touch0ph, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, Fusion does not require a separate partition.
- noblepenguin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Did you install VMware tools? The mouse drivers aren't calibrated until you've done that.
- thenome, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If I had an Intel mac I may chose Fusion instead of Parallels.
They have come a long way. - crackintosh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1sometimes a great new, useful product can be both news and advertising.
Dugg! - pixeldust, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Add me to the list of people who have tried both Parallels and VMWare and went with VMWare. Overall I've found VMWare to provide better performance, stability, compatibility, and support.
- Linh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I did. It was still wonky after that. I'm not doubting VMWare, just my experience on my personal machine.. and the lack of problems from Parallels just to throw it out there. The microsoft mouse in question is the Wireless 6000 I believe (not the laptop one). I did not research it enough mainly because I didn't particularly want to pay for another Virtualization solution, heh. In retrospect, I should have because it'd make it easier to pull images from work if I needed to.
Like I said, on the Mac Pro I set up at work, VMWare worked well (and was the only option since it could use multiple cores) - energizerrabbit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Arcanum has been tested by me (on MacBook) to fail in both VMWARE fusion, and parallels. I am crying.
- pixeldust, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A lot has changed since the betas and speed has definitely been increased starting with beta 4(or was it 4.1?). I definitely recommend trying out the new trial if you haven't tried it lately.
- Linh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm going to go w/ the minority and say I like parallels better. Fusion for some reason does not like my wireless microsoft mouse. It kicks the sensitivity straight through the roof. And since I already bought Parallels 3.0 (days before I found out about the 1/2 price Fusion pre-order promo), I just figured I'd stick with it. Both I found to be lacking in performance honestly (or rather, both sucked up system resources, even tho priority was set to OS X).
On a Mac Pro, Fusion flew (could not try parallels, not my machine) - petekazanjy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1rtm: VMware Fusion can use your bootcamp partition, same as parallels. If fact, it auto-detects it. http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/features.html#c25452
- thebuggalo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Does VMware Fusion require a partition? The one thing I love about Parallels is that I didn't have to take a huge chunk of space out of my harddrive. does Fusion work the same way?
- petekazanjy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Probably because like most things that get dugg, it provides information that people want, in a format they like. Just like coverage of the iPhone, or Google raising gmail storage limits, or anything like that. People digg things that are interesting and compelling to them, so content, even if it's produced by a company like VMware, that meets those requirements, will end up getting dugg.
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is