Macworld 2007 Show Floor Showoff: VMware

Steve,

Your misconception is to think that Intel's VT is necessarily faster than other approaches. This is not the case, at least for the first version of VT which does not have nested page tables.

This has been revealed in a research paper from VMware (http://www.vmware.com/pdf/asplos235_adams.pdf) which was slashdotted. It has been confirmed by 2 independent sources:

1) Intel. "Virtualize easier, not faster" from
http://techplanetasia.com/virtualization/index.php/article/intel_virtualize_easier_not_faster/

2) VirtualBox. "Does VirtualBox support CPU virtualization enhancements such as Intel VT?"
http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ

For that reason, when running 32-bit VMs, VMware does _not_ use hardware assisted virtualization like Intel's VT. Because their current software solution is faster. When running 64-bit VMs (a feast Parallels cannot do) on Intel processors (as opposed to AMD processors), VMware cannot rely on its software solution (which is is based on segmentation, and there is no segmentation anymore in Intel's long mode), so it falls back to using the slower but safer VT.

In other words, VMware always uses the fastest mode that gives you secure VMs. I learnt all this in a session they gave at VMworld. They don't make a bit fuss about the underlying technology they use because their users don't really care about these buzzwords: they just want fast and secure VMs.

Jim, I suggest you click the link to the QuickTime version.

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't VMware ignore Intel's built in Virtualization Technology? All of the reviews I have read to date have made VMware sound significantly slower than Parallels. Has anyone compared the latest builds of both? Is that still the case?

Jim... sorry, but couldn't that just mean that your RSS viewer sucks?

I agree with comment #2.

Although VMware Fusion is only in beta, it already supports all the devices of my Mac better than Parallels: 64-bit guest OSes, SMP guest OSes to make threaded guest applications fly, VMs with up to 8 GB of RAM (even on 32-bit iMacs!), USB 2 isochronous support so I can finally use my Mac's iSight and my GPS software in a VM...

Now granted, Coherence is cool for people who just need t run a Windows app on the Mac. But I'd say it is going to be way easier for VMware to add a Coherence-style hack in their product than it will be for Parallels to make SMP guests work.

Not to mention that VMware is faster for what I do, and that Fusion is a cooler name than Desktop! I cannot wait for the final release of Fusion!

Netscape Video sucks. It is slow to load and jerky to play in my RSS viewer. Please just use YouTube.

What is wrong with Parallels and why is Fusion so much better?

I have been using the beta release of Fusion for the last month or so and I am so glad I didn't waste my money on Parallels.

Fusion is THE windows on a mac app. I've had a chance to run XPPro and the beta 2 versions of the 32 & 64-bit Vista's and only the 64-bit was a bit funny(they are beta2)

I highly reccommend Fusion, Love it! You know you will too.

Somewhere in the first minute the guy says:

"The ability to run Windows applications side-by-side with the Mac, with an ease of use which is unparalleled."

Very funny when your biggest competitor is called "Parallels"...
I wonder was it intentional.