I've been using Parellels for awhile, but my month-long trial ran out last week. I was about to go ahead and make the purchase when my friend suggested I check out VMware Fusion, something that I had heard of a few times before but had recently forgotten about it.
I don't have a lot of needs; the only thing I really use virtualization software for is for IE6/7 and just for checking out layouts in the Windows version of Firefox, Opera, what have you. So basically for web development. I virtualize Windows XP for that, but I also virtualize a copy of Ubuntu, too. That's just for the heck of it. I haven't had too much time yet to actually sit down and check out the front end of Ubuntu, but so far I've really been pleasantly surprised by it. If I weren't so enamored with OS X, I'd probably switch to Ubuntu in a heartbeat.
So I've spent a month or two of irregular usage of Parallels, and tonight I went ahead and picked up VMware's offering. Fusion is pretty nifty, something which I'm pretty surprised at. Paralells tends to take all the glory; I suppose it's the first to market aspect of their product, but Fusion is impressive. I admit I haven't spent a lot of time working in Fusion yet, but from my first look it appears to be slightly easier to work with. It's not a monumental work of UI or anything, but their way of doing things just happens to be a little bit smoother than the Parallels way of doing things, in my opinion. XP setup worked a little bit smoother for me on Fusion, and I've had less glitches with Fusion thus far. With Parallels I ran into a few glitches with starting and stopping virtual machines, that sort of thing. Not to mention my Ubuntu virtual machine just up and stopped working one day, forcing me to reinstall (I hadn't made a backup of the virtual machine, unfortunately).
Fusion doesn't have coherence mode like Parallels does, but again, I've found the Parallels implementation to be either slightly buggy or non-intuitive. Besides, I've also found that when I want to work in another OS, I either can work in a small floating window just to get a couple quick things done, or I'd rather just go full-screen mode.
And, as the final kicker... games. I haven't really played any computer games in quite awhile, mostly because I work nearly solely on a Mac. Sure, I play my Wii and occasionally bust out Halo 2, but I do miss playing Day of Defeat, Counter-Strike, what have you. Right now I'm downloading DoD... hopefully that will run smoothly. If it can... whew, that'd be sick. The fact that you can virtualize an entire OS and then run 3d games in it is pretty amazing. Unfortunately they're stuck on DirectX 7 or so, so when I tried to run Stronghold Legends I ran into problems. Hopefully in the near-future they'll be able to improve on that. And if that's the case, I might have to start looking into getting a more powerful desktop, as my MacBook might have problems with its graphical capabilities.
As a bit of an update, I still haven't had much success with gaming. Half-Life 2 was a no-go (which isn't too big of a surprise since it's a pretty beefy game), but Day of Defeat also crashed on load. Maybe I'll try it again later with Counter-Strike, but it looks like I might have to wait a bit more until I can really play games on my Mac.
You have a Wii now? Last I heard was that you didn't. I soooooo want online play to come out... and make it snappy Nintendo.
What kind of Mac do you have? I'll be getting a 24' iMac soon to replace my crappy PC, and I'm hoping it will be able to handle Half Life 2. It would kind of be a bonus because it'll be mainly for having a better design environment and whoooole lot more real estate (currently 1024*768).
Also, Boot Camp is free, and is supposed to be good.
Chris- yup, got a Wii 2-3 months ago. It's fun... but they do need a couple really solid games to come out to help keep up their momentum. And online play needs to be at the center of that.
Connor- you'll probably be able to handle it just fine. I attribute my problems to two things: 1. I'm virtualizing, which means that it's basically running on half a computer (give or take), and 2. I'm on a MacBook, which has an integrated graphics chipset. No true video card, really. If you dual boot with Boot Camp (which will be included in Leopard), and if you get a 24" iMac, you should be fine with Half-Life 2.
I think Leopard's a whole different blog post Zach.....
Conner -- FYI - I am running a MacBookPro 15" with 2GB of RAM. Booting into BootCamp runs HL2 flawlessly (better than my PC ever did!) with all the eye candy cranked to max. One word of caution, with the laptop running the game, it gets VERY hot. You will need plenty of ventilation, but I ran it continuously for 30 hours without a single hiccup.
That being said, I am running both Parallels and Fusion Beta. I have had zero problems with Parallels and the only complaint I have with Fusion is that it is slow. This could also be becuase it is always in debug mode (because its beta?). Two things that won me over for Parallels: first the ability to create a VM using the same partition as BootCamp. This gives me the best of both worlds since I only boot to BootCamp to play games. I use Parallels to do everything else. i am running SQL Server 2005 Dev edition, VS2005, and several other minor apps and they all work (pretty) flawlessly. I did have a weird issue with IE7 the other day, but it cleared itself up after about 5 minutes. The second thing is the "coherence" mode. Its just nice to be able to use win apps seamlessly on the mac since I do both. (I also love the look on peoples faces when they see XCode running side by side with VS2005!)
Still, it remains to be seen what VMWare will eventually do with Fusion. For now though, my money is on Parallels...
Charles, that's awesome to know because while I'm pretty sure I'm going for the 24' iMac, the 15' MBP is my other option, and I was worried about how it would preform like that. Very good to know, thanks :D
That is pretty interesting. I was wondering about doing Boot Camp for gaming, but I don't think I game as often to need a whole partition for that. I didn't know Parallels used the same partition; that in itself is very slick. And Fusion has an option that lets you click out of debug mode, which apparently speeds things up, if you haven't seen that earlier.
Debugging in Fusion can be disabled in settings.
Parallels Desktop does not currently have 3D graphic support. Google "Crossover Mac" it lets you run individual windows apps in OS X without installing windows..
and Counter Strike is on the list
:D
Try the latest VMWare fusion beta (b4)!
It comes with Unify, something that in my opinion make "Coherence" look out-dated. Unify hides completely the windows bar and kind of integrate the windows menu in the apple top bar. Besides, Every single app can be "docked" and works as a regular OS X (expos?ɬ©, shadows, minimize to dock, ...)
Note! You'll need to re-install the Fusion tools once you upgrade in order to get all the new features working.
One important thing is that it looks like they have dropped 3D support for intel integrated graphic cards ( MacBook and Mac Mini)... This might point that they are getting serious about it. I am on a mini (core solo), so I can't use 3D support now (i could with previous beta).. but still, is much faster and smoother now... you guys with dual cores should be able to assign more than one processor to the virtual machine when gaming... but Boot Camp will sure be much much better at that. Ah! Fusion now supports Boot Camp partitions too :)
In order to run Windows apps, I have tried Virtual PC by Microsoft, Northstar, Crossover, ReactOS, Parallels, and VM Fusion and I see merits in every one of the options, but for my needs, which include Visual Studio development, I need the full Windows OS, and that left me with one of the virtualization options.
The performance overhead on Virtual PC is noticeable, and it doessn't have the option to run a Bootcamp partition and it doesn't have the Coherence/Unity mode. The Parallels Transporter does a decent job with simple P2V migrations, allowing you to keep your old system on your new system, but VM Converter is better, and Invirtus is awesome for complex systems, (Dual boot, multi partition). In the end, I have gone with VM Fusion. VM Fusion works well, includes great 3D and USB support, allows you to use hundreds of preconfigured downloadable virtual machines, uses the standard vmdk file type, and their upgrade and support policies are fair. If you buy a copy of Parallels today from Staples, you just bought an obsolete copy for $80, and then Parallels wants another $60 in order to get the current version. $140 for $80 worth of software is a ripoff, and they really don't care.
If you are interested in my other remarks on the subject, they can be found here:
http://darkbrownhole.blogspot.com/2007/07/migrating-my-toughest-pc-to-virtual-pc.html http://darkbrownhole.blogspot.com/2007/07/parallels-vs-vm-fusion.html http://darkbrownhole.blogspot.com/2007/07/parallels-vs-fusion-part-ii.html http://darkbrownhole.blogspot.com/2007/07/parallels-vs-fusion-part-iii.html
I'm going back and forth 'tween Parallels and Fusion. Some things I've noted:
Parallels (v2.5) was a BIG pain in the ass to get working, but once configured, has been smoooooth
Fusion has a better snapshot feature, allowing you to exit the app without losing where your desktop was
Parellels just would NOT load my ubuntu disks. Kbuntu, xubuntu, ubunutu (6.06, 7.04), nada. I could not get it up and running
Fusion set up, configured and had running XP FAAAR easier than Parallels
Fusion installed and ran/runs Ubuntu (7.04) easily and quickly, though I do not believe it's as responsive as an ubuntu install on a wiped PC laptop
Despite the ease of setting up the XP on Fusion, I found m'self using the Parallels partition more. Then, Fusion solved the dilemma for me: it simply wouldn' bring up XP. There it was in the drive list, but clicking it merely gave me a black screen (the black screen of death?) and nothing, no key combo, nada, would change that. I had to blow away the XP partition and have yet to reinstall it.
NOW, the caveats:
I'm running on a MacBook with 2gb ram. I'm running Parallels v2.5 against Fusion v1.0 (50460), which I believe matches more with Parallels 3.0 for the "Coherence v Unity" debate.
Oh, forgot to mention that:
Despite the above, I find m'self switching to the "pc window" mode instead, running the PC fullscreen and switching to the mac when I need to. Probably, were I running this on a 20-24" iMac, I'd be more likely to use coherence/unity.
Unfortunately, I'm still torn: Do I upgrade to parallels 3.0 or buy the fusion license? At intro price vs. paid upgrade, the cost is a wash.
With Fusion, I get better ubuntu support. Or will I get that with the move to 3.0? And was my XP problem with fusion an isolated incident (due, perhaps, to Fusion's Beta status?) or an indication of deeper problem?
sigh decisions, decisions....
I apologize in advance for posting again to your site, but in fairness to Parallels, I thought it was important to provide and update on my licensing issue.
I sent a complaint email to Syesha Thomas at Parallels and she said that if I register an old version that was purchased in May 2007 or later, that Parallels would automatically send a free upgrade email. She also graciously asked for copies of my receipts, and subsequently sent me free upgrade keys for each copy of Parallels that I had purchased in May 2007 or later.
I stick by my earlier frustrations with the licensing issue, but I also want to give credit to Parallels for adopting a new policy that seems much more fair and reasonable.
I also noticed that in the Apple store yesterday, that the new packaging for Parallels includes the version number now in bold print on the front of the package, and that is a very welcome change.
The 'Parallels Tools for Bootcamp' don't appear to be available for download anymore, but on the other hand VMWare Fusion does claim to support the Bootcamp partition (according to the VMWare website). That being the case, it this an argument FOR using VMWare Fusion now?