Filed under: Software
VMware Fusion set for August 6th release
Running Windows is something that most people need to do at some point, that's a fact. Luckily for us Mac users running Windows on Intel Macs is much better than emulating Windows on PPC Macs (I still shudder when I think back to my Virtual PC days). This is because instead of having to emulate the processor architecture, as well as run the software, it is possible to 'virtualize' Windows on Intel Macs. This means that Windows runs in its own little space on your Mac's Intel chip (that's a gross over simplification, but you get the idea).My virtualization app of choice, VMware Fusion, is finally entering the home stretch of its beta. VMware told our friends at Ar Technica that the final version of Fusion will be available for purchase on August 6th for $79.99 (you can preorder it up until the 5th for $39.99). VMware Fusion builds on VMware's rock solid virtualization technology and wraps it up in a pretty Cocoa shell. Check out all Fusion's features here.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
NotAwesome said 11:10AM on 8-02-2007
Care to elaborate (or point to a post if you've done it already) on why you prefer VMWare over Parallels?
I'm FINALLY about to upgrade my TiBook (almost 5 years old) and am trying to figure out between the two which I should go with. Up until now I just thought it would be Parallels because it seems to be one most talked about.
Thanks
Reply
Mike said 11:25AM on 8-02-2007
I personally prefer vmware because it runs much smoother. Also, unity is leaps and bounds ahead of parallels in overall function. They both have options to try before you buy and in the end its personal preference. I also like the ability to take a vmware image from one system to another without having to port it to another program etc. In the end though I don't think you can go wrong with either except for parallels seemingly promised features that they end up making you pay for (from what I heard, lots of people upset about it).
Reply
Se7en said 11:28AM on 8-02-2007
Like NotAwesome, I'd be interested in hearing why you prefer VMFusion over Parallels, Scott. I own Parallels 1.0, but am willing to switch over if there are some compelling features in VMFusion, rather than upgrade to Parallels 2.0.
Maybe a TUAW shootout between the two apps next week? :D
Reply
sladuuch said 11:36AM on 8-02-2007
Fusion is faster than Parallels. It also feels much more polished and much more professional. Unity slays coherence--you can even find individual Windows windows in Exposé. The virtual appliance marketplace also makes it dirt simple to use Linux machines--just download a pre-made one and start using it, without having to install anything.
Also, Fusion looks and feels more Mac-like. Parallels seems like it was made by people who know Windows and thought that doing the widgets it in Aqua would cut it. I just love Fusion.
Reply
John said 11:44AM on 8-02-2007
Fusion is nice, and Unity is definitely better than Parallels' Coherence, but until it can support multiple monitors I'm sticking with Parallels.
Reply
tavanier said 11:48AM on 8-02-2007
I selected Vmware after using parallels 3.0 which is slow, buggy and far worse than there 2.5 version. I have tried to install Vista in parallels which crashed every-time parallels tools was installing. It also seemed to run compressor every single boot time.
On the other hand Vista installed fine in Vmware and compressing disk was flawless. It's a shame Parallels could get there act together and stay the leader but they have now lost me as a customer. Sorry.
Reply
Tom Sinclair said 5:26PM on 8-02-2007
I teach at a technology school and we use VMware for our infrastructure classes because it lets our students set up virtual networks of computers on their desktops. We used to use VPC, but VMware will run on Linux as well as Windows and has better hardware support.
To return to the Fusion topic, I use it because it lets me use any of the VMs I create at school on my MBP. Unity is definitely icing on the cake (and makes an eye-popping demo for non-Mac folks).
Reply
Ross said 2:04PM on 8-03-2007
Parallels beats VMware fusion in graphics performance though... not just speed, but Parallels also offers excellent graphics support like 2d video smoothing (when you watch movies in full screen or something) Videos are not accelerated at all and pixellated in vmware fusion.
Reply
Rufo Sanchez said 12:24PM on 8-02-2007
I've used Parallels on a daily basis since before the original release, and have switched to VMWare full-time around VMWare 1.0b4. From my personal experiences, VMWare Fusion is faster, more stable, has excellent support available on their forums, and is more compatible when it comes to moving VMWare images between differing computers (to the point that VMWare has a directory of virtual machines you can browse through and pull from at your leisure).
VMWare feels to me like they're taking the time and effort neccessary to make sure their product is excellent and their features are well-tested and cleanly implemented, whereas Parallels' approach is to rush out all sorts of sweeping grand features, but not throughly test/debug them until it's a little too late. (Parallels erasing your Boot Camp partition, anyone?)
The whole "give us money for Parallels 3 - sight unseen! - or we'll jack the price on you - oh, and by the way, if you don't like Parallels 3, you can't downgrade your VMs" thing kind of cheesed me off, too. No demo, no money.
They both work fine - I don't think you can go too far astray with either program - but so far VMWare has given me a far better impression in a much shorter period of time then Parallels did in the year or so I relied on it.
Reply
Joshua Ochs said 12:35PM on 8-02-2007
VMWare has more advanced features (ACPI, multiple processor support, USB 2.0), a far more Mac-like interface (Cocoa goodness, not a ported Linux/QT interface), and MUCH better support. Both programs have user forms, but I've had much better experiences getting feedback and responses on the VMWare forum than the Parallels one. I get the sense that the Parallels folks just don't have the manpower to adequately support their product, what with the huge influx of Mac users. VMWare with its enterprise history has no such issues.
It's faster, more advanced, better interface, and better support. As an owner of both products, I have no plans on upgrading or touching Parallels again.
Reply
Daniel Jimenez said 12:49PM on 8-02-2007
Really? VMWare seems faster than Parallels? I have noticed quite the opposite actually...
Reply
cuban321 said 12:50PM on 8-02-2007
Oh and the last VMWare version I tried was RC1.
Reply
Chris said 12:53PM on 8-02-2007
To put it bluntly, VMware is one of the "founding fathers" of commercial virtualization is backed by a multibillion-dollar corporation. They have thousands of customers that use their products not only for desktop use, but to power highly-reliable clusters of servers. I'm sure Parallels has some nice guys, but they're essentially a small homegrown shop. Their support is lacking and their documentation is subpar.
VMware also has some of the brightest minds when it comes to optimizing virtualization. You can read some of their academic white papers here: http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/resources/esx_resources.html They're constantly looking to squeeze every last bit of speed out of their products.
I personally use Parallels right now on my Mac, but I use VMware on my servers and PC. Bottom line: when Fusion gets released Parallels will be removed and I will likely never reinstall it again.
Reply
UncleWinker said 1:02PM on 8-02-2007
If I had a choice I'd pick VMWare, though I really don't want to run Windows on my macbook. I think at sometime I might end up doing it anyway.
Reply
Greg G said 1:33PM on 8-02-2007
I would like a good VMWare vs Parallels discussion.
Also, when the full version is out, will my beta expire? :p I don't kno if VMWare is worth it yet, since it can't even use my gfx card for 3d graphics, dX9, or opengl x_X. Not to much of a Windows replacement.
Reply
Galley said 1:26PM on 8-02-2007
Love the logo; haven't had to use their software, though.
Reply
Tilman said 1:56PM on 8-02-2007
I'm using Fusion because I can scan with my Canon USB All-In-One printer/scanner in Fusion. With Parallels, it always hangs during a scan operation.
Reply
Filou said 1:35PM on 8-02-2007
What about DirectX ?
I tryed VMware and Parallels.
The later seemed me better.
What's your opinion ?
Reply
Chris said 1:40PM on 8-02-2007
The question you've got to ask yourself is: what company will be here tomorrow? What company actually has people coming up with new optimizations, and not just copying others?
If you're supporting Parallels simply because it was the first out of the gate with Mac support, you need to take a good long look at WHY you're supporting them. First doesn't necessarily mean best.
Reply
Marcus Guerrero said 2:28PM on 8-02-2007
I am a current Parallels 3 user and would like to try out VMWare's Fusion and decide for myself which I would prefer. Would I be able to use my current WinXP install used by Parallels?
Reply