VMware Fusion 2.0 IS Here

groovetube · Sep 18th, 2008, 09:28 PM

	Quote:			Originally Posted by smellybook
	switched to VMware and couldn't be happier. I like the ability to run 2 processors.

that was initially the deal breaker for me on parallels.

SINC · Sep 18th, 2008, 09:34 PM

	Quote:			Originally Posted by screature
	That's too bad SINC. I wonder what version you were using. At any rate if you are happy with Parallels no reason to switch. Having had both Parallels and Fusion work for me I have to say I prefer Fusion, it is faster and with the latest advancements it is well, awesome.

I think it all boils down to how intense your use of Windows really is. Mine is low key non processor intense and suits me fine. When I first tried VMWare, it was in beta and never did work right for me. That's not to say it isn't superior now though. I just prefer what has always worked for my low intensity needs.

Fox · Sep 19th, 2008, 07:21 AM

Those of you needing a virtualization product might want to try VirtualBox, which is open source and has most of the features of the other two. It is constantly being updated and improves all the time. If you are using it to run Linux, VirtualBox and VMware Fusion are better products than Parallels, as the tools on them work better with most Linux guest OSes. In this regard, VMware Fusion 2.0 is a major upgrade and brings the level of support to the more popular Linux distros nearly up to what it does for Windows. It now supports drag and drop to and from Mac - Linux. I tried it with Ubuntu and it works just like it does with Windows. These guys are clearly listening to what their users want.

kb244 · Sep 19th, 2008, 11:25 AM

	Quote:			Originally Posted by Fox
	Those of you needing a virtualization product might want to try VirtualBox, which is open source and has most of the features of the other two. It is constantly being updated and improves all the time. If you are using it to run Linux, VirtualBox and VMware Fusion are better products than Parallels, as the tools on them work better with most Linux guest OSes. In this regard, VMware Fusion 2.0 is a major upgrade and brings the level of support to the more popular Linux distros nearly up to what it does for Windows. It now supports drag and drop to and from Mac - Linux. I tried it with Ubuntu and it works just like it does with Windows. These guys are clearly listening to what their users want.

VirtualBox vs VmWare 2.0 Server

Virtualization smackdown: Sun xVM VirtualBox 1.6 vs. VMWare Server 2.0 Beta 2 | Between the Lines | ZDNet.com

	Quote:
	Conclusion Both xVM VirtualBox 1.6 and VMWare Server 2.0 are excellent free SMB/Personal virtualization solutions, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. VirtualBox has the widest range of host system support and has the lightest hardware demands, and excels for single PC personal virtualization needs, but requires more UNIX/Linux command-line skills when used as server virtualization solution. VMWare 2.0 has an excellent web-management UI with the lightest client payload, but this comes at the expense of heftier hardware requirements for good performance and a fatter software drop on the server. Our verdict? We like both, and feel each will carve out its own specific niche. Ultimately, we’d like to see xVM VirtualBox with more user-friendly remote management capabilities, and we’d like to see VMWare Server 2.0 go on something of a diet and become more compatible with the wider base of installed browsers. Additionally, I’d like to finally see some fruit from the labor being put into the openvmtools project and get the VMWare tools built into the upstream kernel so this constant recompiling business with the kernel upgrades gets put to rest. But if this is what you have to put up with as an early adopter when you use a free host-based virtualization solution, I’m perfectly happy with either of the two.

The advantage of the virtualbox appears to be its probably the only good free virtualization software.

I will be installing it myself shortly to compare it memory/processor wise with an identical installation of XP Pro for IE7/IE8 testing. And see which of the two ultimatly is lighter for such minimal purpose as well as take note of either's responsiveness. Thus far VmWare been extremely responsive with me with a installation of TinyXP (a stripped version of XP for those not needing the extra bloat).

Fox · Sep 19th, 2008, 01:00 PM

A small point, kb244, but VirtualBox has had two revisions since that review, and the current version is 2.02. Never having used VMware Server, I don't know how it differs from VMware Fusion, but the differences might be as relevant to the review as the update to VirtualBox.

In my own experience with VB, VM and Parallels, I have found all three to be feature-rich and very easy to use. I haven't tried Windows in VB, so I can't comment on the relative feature set there, but with various distros of Linux, VB and VM are great. VM just added the drag and drop support, which makes it the best option for any version of Linux it supports. But VB seems to support some distros better than VM does (e.g., Debian) and that makes it a better option for those distros. All three of the products list the versions of Linux they officially support on their website, although some that aren't listed work well anyway.

kb244 · Sep 19th, 2008, 03:05 PM

I noticed virtualbox even 2.0.2 cannot use your bootcamp partition like Parrallel and VmWare can. Also I noticed VirtualBox is faster, but the screen has drawing problems when resizing or updating. But its simple and fast.

jcharlesworth · Sep 19th, 2008, 04:19 PM

	Quote:			Originally Posted by neufelni
	I've upgraded to 2.0 and it's great. This update definitely puts Fusion ahead of Parallels.

I upgraded from Fusion 1.1.3 to Fusion 2.0.

What a mistake.

Using the identical Virtual Machine file, 2.0 used double the memory footprint, causing OS X to create an enormous (i.e. slow) swap file (3.5GB)

Very laggy/jumpy mouse.

Stuttery graphics.

Had to manually undo the changes that 2.0 did to my VM File, but now I'm happily back running v1.1.3.

The lesson: Make sure you make a backup copy of your Virtual Machine file before you try upgrading.

Hope this helps,
.../j

screature · Sep 19th, 2008, 04:52 PM

Definitely back up before you upgrade, but haven't had the issues you refer to personally. No problems here.

kb244 · Sep 19th, 2008, 04:53 PM

In my testing of VirtualBox, I Cannot get Vista installed. So points to VmWare for that. hangs at the "Windows is copying files" at the start.

edit it make it into the graphic install screen... after about 30 minutes of hanging on the progress back on black screen.

neufelni · Sep 19th, 2008, 06:49 PM

	Quote:			Originally Posted by jcharlesworth
	I upgraded from Fusion 1.1.3 to Fusion 2.0. What a mistake. Using the identical Virtual Machine file, 2.0 used double the memory footprint, causing OS X to create an enormous (i.e. slow) swap file (3.5GB) Very laggy/jumpy mouse. Stuttery graphics. Had to manually undo the changes that 2.0 did to my VM File, but now I'm happily back running v1.1.3. The lesson: Make sure you make a backup copy of your Virtual Machine file before you try upgrading. Hope this helps, .../j

Did you upgrade VMware Tools in your Windows VM? I had a couple of problems after upgrading to 2.0 too, but upgrading VMware Tools solved them.

Sep 19th, 2008, 07:21 AM	#13
Fox Full Citizen Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Peterborough, ON Posts: 790	Those of you needing a virtualization product might want to try VirtualBox, which is open source and has most of the features of the other two. It is constantly being updated and improves all the time. If you are using it to run Linux, VirtualBox and VMware Fusion are better products than Parallels, as the tools on them work better with most Linux guest OSes. In this regard, VMware Fusion 2.0 is a major upgrade and brings the level of support to the more popular Linux distros nearly up to what it does for Windows. It now supports drag and drop to and from Mac - Linux. I tried it with Ubuntu and it works just like it does with Windows. These guys are clearly listening to what their users want. __________________ G4/1.3 ghz Cube, 20" iMac 2.16 ghz Core 2 duo, 1.42 mhz Mini, G4/1.33 15" AI PowerBook, G3/400 Pismo

Sep 19th, 2008, 01:00 PM	#15
Fox Full Citizen Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Peterborough, ON Posts: 790	A small point, kb244, but VirtualBox has had two revisions since that review, and the current version is 2.02. Never having used VMware Server, I don't know how it differs from VMware Fusion, but the differences might be as relevant to the review as the update to VirtualBox. In my own experience with VB, VM and Parallels, I have found all three to be feature-rich and very easy to use. I haven't tried Windows in VB, so I can't comment on the relative feature set there, but with various distros of Linux, VB and VM are great. VM just added the drag and drop support, which makes it the best option for any version of Linux it supports. But VB seems to support some distros better than VM does (e.g., Debian) and that makes it a better option for those distros. All three of the products list the versions of Linux they officially support on their website, although some that aren't listed work well anyway. __________________ G4/1.3 ghz Cube, 20" iMac 2.16 ghz Core 2 duo, 1.42 mhz Mini, G4/1.33 15" AI PowerBook, G3/400 Pismo

Sep 19th, 2008, 03:05 PM	#16
kb244 Honourable Citizen Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Michigan, US Posts: 1,666	I noticed virtualbox even 2.0.2 cannot use your bootcamp partition like Parrallel and VmWare can. Also I noticed VirtualBox is faster, but the screen has drawing problems when resizing or updating. But its simple and fast. __________________ -Karl Blessing http://www.karlblessing.com iPodTouchAnswers.com

Sep 19th, 2008, 04:52 PM	#18
screature Honourable Citizen Join Date: May 2007 Location: Aylmer (Gatineau) across the river from Ottawa Posts: 7,126	Definitely back up before you upgrade, but haven't had the issues you refer to personally. No problems here. __________________ Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz Gen 1.1 MacIntel Mini 2009 Core 2 Duo 2.26GHZ MacIntel Mini 1.83GHz

Sep 19th, 2008, 04:53 PM	#19
kb244 Honourable Citizen Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Michigan, US Posts: 1,666	In my testing of VirtualBox, I Cannot get Vista installed. So points to VmWare for that. hangs at the "Windows is copying files" at the start. edit it make it into the graphic install screen... after about 30 minutes of hanging on the progress back on black screen. __________________ -Karl Blessing http://www.karlblessing.com iPodTouchAnswers.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Parallels or VMware Fusion?	Fisto	Anything Mac	29	Apr 14th, 2008 03:43 PM
Permissions Help - Saving from VMWare Fusion to Home Directory (Leopard)	ebarstad	Anything Mac	2	Mar 6th, 2008 12:25 PM
Last chance for deep discount on VMWare Fusion	joltguy	Anything Mac	3	Aug 3rd, 2007 02:59 PM
VMware Fusion - 50% Off!	bandersnatch	Anything Mac	4	Jun 14th, 2007 09:48 PM
VMWare Fusion --- Finally	da_jonesy	Everything Else, eh!	4	Jan 1st, 2007 05:50 PM