VMWare really need to get their product purchasing for Mac act together ... I love the product but the online purchase is like something from 1990! They need to make it an automatic download once purchased or even use the app store. As it is once you have paid your are left to navigate their entire product line including enterprise products and make several selection and several pages later you finally get to a download page reminiscent of a PC spam download page. It is totally not what Mac users are used to.
Why do you think it doesn't allow a vm for Linux? I run Ubuntu, and all the possible Mac OSs as well as XP, Vista and 7. Why not visit the VMWare web site and see for yourself?
I said no expansion in Linux support. Most notably, a lot of recent developments in Linux require some form of graphics hardware (Unity and GNOME 3), but Fusion refuses to enable hardware acceleration for anything non-Windows (Parallels does, and I'm considering switching because of it).
I said no expansion in Linux support. Most notably, a lot of recent developments in Linux require some form of graphics hardware (Unity and GNOME 3), but Fusion refuses to enable hardware acceleration for anything non-Windows (Parallels does, and I'm considering switching because of it).
Parallels handles far better game support. I am currently running Doom 3 and Quake 4 on a paralles 7 vm guest running windows 7 without any issues what so ever. I guess when it comes to day to day activities such as surfing the web and email both provide same level of efficiency. It all comes down to what you do with the VM. just my 2 cents.
I purchased my Fusion 3 upgrade on 11/09. The AI article states only buyers of Fusion 3 after 7/11 are eligible for a free upgrade, but I am hoping all Fusion 3 owners are covered. Will find out next Monday, I guess.
VMware Fusion 4 now supports OS X Lion in a virtual machine, allowing users to run OS X Lion, OS X Lion Server, Mac OS X Snow Leopard Server and Mac OS X Leopard Server in virtual machines.
I can't think of any reason why Apple couldn't allow Snow Leopard (client) to run virtually in Lion. Seems like it would be a no-lose proposition. Happy customers, more Lion upgrade sales, more hardware sales to people who can't /won't otherwise upgrade to Lion. If Leopard Server and Snow Loepard Server can both run, there shouldn't be a technical reason for the client not to be able to run.
Other than using their own customers as hostages to get 3rd party developers to upgrade their software to Lion, there's simply to reason not to allow it. (And that would be a pretty shitty thing to do if that were Apple's motiviation for not allowing it.)
This would then parallel the situation wtih the Classic transition. You can still run your old software, but it's kind of an annoyance to have to launch Classic (VMWare) just to do it. That should be enough motivation for consumers and developers to move to Lion comaptible software without making it all-or-nothing. I can move to Lion and then upgrade my software as updates and money become available to do so. (An upgrade to Lion would cost me about $500 and then there would still be the whole mess with Quicken and iSync.)
The biggest thing from this announcement is that VMware can host MacOSX OSes. If they extend this feature to ESXi then Apple's exit from server hardware will be a non-issue. VMWare shops like ours can easily add MacOS servers to our mix of Windows and Linux servers... Also, VMWare player could serve up MacOS desktops over thin clients using PCoIP...
'Fusion 4 makes it terribly easy to create Lion VMs by dragging the "Install OS X Lion" Mac App Store app right into a starter virtual machine; there is no step 2.'
I can't think of any reason why Apple couldn't allow Snow Leopard (client) to run virtually in Lion. Seems like it would be a no-lose proposition. Happy customers, more Lion upgrade sales, more hardware sales to people who can't /won't otherwise upgrade to Lion. If Leopard Server and Snow Loepard Server can both run, there shouldn't be a technical reason for the client not to be able to run.
Other than using their own customers as hostages to get 3rd party developers to upgrade their software to Lion, there's simply to reason not to allow it. (And that would be a pretty shitty thing to do if that were Apple's motiviation for not allowing it.)
This would then parallel the situation wtih the Classic transition. You can still run your old software, but it's kind of an annoyance to have to launch Classic (VMWare) just to do it. That should be enough motivation for consumers and developers to move to Lion comaptible software without making it all-or-nothing. I can move to Lion and then upgrade my software as updates and money become available to do so. (An upgrade to Lion would cost me about $500 and then there would still be the whole mess with Quicken and iSync.)
I agree, till then (I doubt it will happen though) the easiest and cheapest solution is a second boot drive with Snow Leopard or partition your existing drive if you have room.
Parallels handles far better game support. I am currently running Doom 3 and Quake 4 on a paralles 7 vm guest running windows 7 without any issues what so ever. I guess when it comes to day to day activities such as surfing the web and email both provide same level of efficiency. It all comes down to what you do with the VM. just my 2 cents.
Have you found any reason to upgrade from 6 to 7? Other than the occasional weirdness of my guest OS windows popping up on the wrong space from time-to-time, I haven't had any issues with running Parallels 6 on Lion. I'm not seeing anything compelling enough to have me forking over yet another $50 for the upgrade - this is getting expensive, as I have been using Parallels since version 3 and have now paid $150 already over the past three years for the annual upgrades - that said, each version thus-far came with features compelling enough to justify the cost. I'm just not sure that's the case this time.
I will have to check this out. I originally started VM'ing with Parallels when it first came out. I tried VMware later and loved it! I have not used Parallels since. This new release looks amazing, so many great new features (most of which look relevant). I like the path VMware has gone with it's product, I love supporting them!
I would recommend. I found (on my late 2008 8GB MBP) a noticeable performance increase on Win7 machines which i believe to be worth the cost all by itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242
Have you found any reason to upgrade from 6 to 7? Other than the occasional weirdness of my guest OS windows popping up on the wrong space from time-to-time, I haven't had any issues with running Parallels 6 on Lion. I'm not seeing anything compelling enough to have me forking over yet another $50 for the upgrade - this is getting expensive, as I have been using Parallels since version 3 and have now paid $150 already over the past three years for the annual upgrades - that said, each version thus-far came with features compelling enough to justify the cost. I'm just not sure that's the case this time.
So as an owner of VMWare Fusion, I can spend $50 to upgrade to 4...or I can spend $30 to upgrade to Parallels 7.
..see ya, VMWare.
Lucky you, because I'm a loyal (so far) owner of Parallels and it's $50 for me to upgrade from 6 to 7. Lower price to lure you in, then prepare for higher upgrade costs ongoing. I was looking at VMWare and was hoping to find a similar upgrade in the opposite direction. I think that these frequent updates at $50 are overpriced.
I will have to check this out. I originally started VM'ing with Parallels when it first came out. I tried VMware later and loved it! I have not used Parallels since. This new release looks amazing, so many great new features (most of which look relevant). I like the path VMware has gone with it's product, I love supporting them!
I found the opposite. Around the time of Parallels 4 I tried an early version of Fusion using a VM that was stored on removable media. My VM (under Fusion) locked up consistently. In order to use it I had to use Parallels transporter to convert the VM from VMWare to Parallels and then it worked fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnash
I would recommend. I found (on my late 2008 8GB MBP) a noticeable performance increase on Win7 machines which i believe to be worth the cost all by itself.
Good to know. I'm still using the same XP VM I've been on for years, but I'm testing out Windows 7 as an alternative now. The only reason I haven't migrated yet is that my company still relies pretty heavily on NetMeeting which has been deprecated on Win 7.
Have you found any reason to upgrade from 6 to 7? Other than the occasional weirdness of my guest OS windows popping up on the wrong space from time-to-time, I haven't had any issues with running Parallels 6 on Lion. I'm not seeing anything compelling enough to have me forking over yet another $50 for the upgrade - this is getting expensive, as I have been using Parallels since version 3 and have now paid $150 already over the past three years for the annual upgrades - that said, each version thus-far came with features compelling enough to justify the cost. I'm just not sure that's the case this time.
Thanks!
For me the ability to go upto 1GB of graphics memory, this is what is enabling me to play these games without any issue at all. Also from a resource perspective I can see Parallels 7 run smoother and using less resources. even I have it running on my macbook air (mid 2011) no issues to report.
Lucky you, because I'm a loyal (so far) owner of Parallels and it's $50 for me to upgrade from 6 to 7. Lower price to lure you in, then prepare for higher upgrade costs ongoing. I was looking at VMWare and was hoping to find a similar upgrade in the opposite direction. I think that these frequent updates at $50 are overpriced.
Funny you should say that. I was a loyal Parallels user. But then after I bought 5, six weeks later version 6 came out. I didn't want to pay $50 to upgrade, but then VMWare were offering $10 for any VMWare or Parallels users to upgrade to 3.1, so I took it.
I regretted it, because VMWare ran a lot slower, to the point where I might as well have just used VirtualBox. I went back to the 'old' version of Parallels. But as a result of buying VMWare, I upgraded to Parallels 7 for $39, or less than the cost than a single Parallels upgrade.
The biggest thing from this announcement is that VMware can host MacOSX OSes. If they extend this feature to ESXi then Apple's exit from server hardware will be a non-issue. VMWare shops like ours can easily add MacOS servers to our mix of Windows and Linux servers... Also, VMWare player could serve up MacOS desktops over thin clients using PCoIP...
One can only hope.
That's not new with this release (at least not for the server Mac OSes hosting). And you can only run virtual OS X on an OS X computer (ie, only on a Mac). That is unlikely to change, especially when Apple makes all their money on hardware sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I agree, till then (I doubt it will happen though) the easiest and cheapest solution is a second boot drive with Snow Leopard or partition your existing drive if you have room.
True, but I suspect in that case I'd end up just staying booted in SL anyway. Too much hassle to be going back and forth and not enough benefit in Lion to justify rebooting again to get back to it.
Comments
Wonder if there's a way to fool it into running Tiger Server (and thus Classic)?
Classic only runs in PPC flavor of Tiger. Try SheepShaver to run on an Intel box.
Why do you think it doesn't allow a vm for Linux? I run Ubuntu, and all the possible Mac OSs as well as XP, Vista and 7. Why not visit the VMWare web site and see for yourself?
I said no expansion in Linux support. Most notably, a lot of recent developments in Linux require some form of graphics hardware (Unity and GNOME 3), but Fusion refuses to enable hardware acceleration for anything non-Windows (Parallels does, and I'm considering switching because of it).
I said no expansion in Linux support. Most notably, a lot of recent developments in Linux require some form of graphics hardware (Unity and GNOME 3), but Fusion refuses to enable hardware acceleration for anything non-Windows (Parallels does, and I'm considering switching because of it).
OK my bad
VMware Fusion 4 now supports OS X Lion in a virtual machine, allowing users to run OS X Lion, OS X Lion Server, Mac OS X Snow Leopard Server and Mac OS X Leopard Server in virtual machines.
I can't think of any reason why Apple couldn't allow Snow Leopard (client) to run virtually in Lion. Seems like it would be a no-lose proposition. Happy customers, more Lion upgrade sales, more hardware sales to people who can't /won't otherwise upgrade to Lion. If Leopard Server and Snow Loepard Server can both run, there shouldn't be a technical reason for the client not to be able to run.
Other than using their own customers as hostages to get 3rd party developers to upgrade their software to Lion, there's simply to reason not to allow it. (And that would be a pretty shitty thing to do if that were Apple's motiviation for not allowing it.)
This would then parallel the situation wtih the Classic transition. You can still run your old software, but it's kind of an annoyance to have to launch Classic (VMWare) just to do it. That should be enough motivation for consumers and developers to move to Lion comaptible software without making it all-or-nothing. I can move to Lion and then upgrade my software as updates and money become available to do so. (An upgrade to Lion would cost me about $500 and then there would still be the whole mess with Quicken and iSync.)
One can only hope.
'Fusion 4 makes it terribly easy to create Lion VMs by dragging the "Install OS X Lion" Mac App Store app right into a starter virtual machine; there is no step 2.'
I can't think of any reason why Apple couldn't allow Snow Leopard (client) to run virtually in Lion. Seems like it would be a no-lose proposition. Happy customers, more Lion upgrade sales, more hardware sales to people who can't /won't otherwise upgrade to Lion. If Leopard Server and Snow Loepard Server can both run, there shouldn't be a technical reason for the client not to be able to run.
Other than using their own customers as hostages to get 3rd party developers to upgrade their software to Lion, there's simply to reason not to allow it. (And that would be a pretty shitty thing to do if that were Apple's motiviation for not allowing it.)
This would then parallel the situation wtih the Classic transition. You can still run your old software, but it's kind of an annoyance to have to launch Classic (VMWare) just to do it. That should be enough motivation for consumers and developers to move to Lion comaptible software without making it all-or-nothing. I can move to Lion and then upgrade my software as updates and money become available to do so. (An upgrade to Lion would cost me about $500 and then there would still be the whole mess with Quicken and iSync.)
I agree, till then (I doubt it will happen though) the easiest and cheapest solution is a second boot drive with Snow Leopard or partition your existing drive if you have room.
..see ya, VMWare.
Parallels handles far better game support. I am currently running Doom 3 and Quake 4 on a paralles 7 vm guest running windows 7 without any issues what so ever. I guess when it comes to day to day activities such as surfing the web and email both provide same level of efficiency. It all comes down to what you do with the VM. just my 2 cents.
Have you found any reason to upgrade from 6 to 7? Other than the occasional weirdness of my guest OS windows popping up on the wrong space from time-to-time, I haven't had any issues with running Parallels 6 on Lion. I'm not seeing anything compelling enough to have me forking over yet another $50 for the upgrade - this is getting expensive, as I have been using Parallels since version 3 and have now paid $150 already over the past three years for the annual upgrades - that said, each version thus-far came with features compelling enough to justify the cost. I'm just not sure that's the case this time.
Thanks!
Have you found any reason to upgrade from 6 to 7? Other than the occasional weirdness of my guest OS windows popping up on the wrong space from time-to-time, I haven't had any issues with running Parallels 6 on Lion. I'm not seeing anything compelling enough to have me forking over yet another $50 for the upgrade - this is getting expensive, as I have been using Parallels since version 3 and have now paid $150 already over the past three years for the annual upgrades - that said, each version thus-far came with features compelling enough to justify the cost. I'm just not sure that's the case this time.
Thanks!
So as an owner of VMWare Fusion, I can spend $50 to upgrade to 4...or I can spend $30 to upgrade to Parallels 7.
..see ya, VMWare.
Lucky you, because I'm a loyal (so far) owner of Parallels and it's $50 for me to upgrade from 6 to 7. Lower price to lure you in, then prepare for higher upgrade costs ongoing. I was looking at VMWare and was hoping to find a similar upgrade in the opposite direction. I think that these frequent updates at $50 are overpriced.
I will have to check this out. I originally started VM'ing with Parallels when it first came out. I tried VMware later and loved it! I have not used Parallels since. This new release looks amazing, so many great new features (most of which look relevant). I like the path VMware has gone with it's product, I love supporting them!
I found the opposite. Around the time of Parallels 4 I tried an early version of Fusion using a VM that was stored on removable media. My VM (under Fusion) locked up consistently. In order to use it I had to use Parallels transporter to convert the VM from VMWare to Parallels and then it worked fine.
I would recommend. I found (on my late 2008 8GB MBP) a noticeable performance increase on Win7 machines which i believe to be worth the cost all by itself.
Good to know. I'm still using the same XP VM I've been on for years, but I'm testing out Windows 7 as an alternative now. The only reason I haven't migrated yet is that my company still relies pretty heavily on NetMeeting which has been deprecated on Win 7.
Have you found any reason to upgrade from 6 to 7? Other than the occasional weirdness of my guest OS windows popping up on the wrong space from time-to-time, I haven't had any issues with running Parallels 6 on Lion. I'm not seeing anything compelling enough to have me forking over yet another $50 for the upgrade - this is getting expensive, as I have been using Parallels since version 3 and have now paid $150 already over the past three years for the annual upgrades - that said, each version thus-far came with features compelling enough to justify the cost. I'm just not sure that's the case this time.
Thanks!
For me the ability to go upto 1GB of graphics memory, this is what is enabling me to play these games without any issue at all. Also from a resource perspective I can see Parallels 7 run smoother and using less resources. even I have it running on my macbook air (mid 2011) no issues to report.
Lucky you, because I'm a loyal (so far) owner of Parallels and it's $50 for me to upgrade from 6 to 7. Lower price to lure you in, then prepare for higher upgrade costs ongoing. I was looking at VMWare and was hoping to find a similar upgrade in the opposite direction. I think that these frequent updates at $50 are overpriced.
Funny you should say that. I was a loyal Parallels user. But then after I bought 5, six weeks later version 6 came out. I didn't want to pay $50 to upgrade, but then VMWare were offering $10 for any VMWare or Parallels users to upgrade to 3.1, so I took it.
I regretted it, because VMWare ran a lot slower, to the point where I might as well have just used VirtualBox. I went back to the 'old' version of Parallels. But as a result of buying VMWare, I upgraded to Parallels 7 for $39, or less than the cost than a single Parallels upgrade.
The biggest thing from this announcement is that VMware can host MacOSX OSes. If they extend this feature to ESXi then Apple's exit from server hardware will be a non-issue. VMWare shops like ours can easily add MacOS servers to our mix of Windows and Linux servers... Also, VMWare player could serve up MacOS desktops over thin clients using PCoIP...
One can only hope.
That's not new with this release (at least not for the server Mac OSes hosting). And you can only run virtual OS X on an OS X computer (ie, only on a Mac). That is unlikely to change, especially when Apple makes all their money on hardware sales.
I agree, till then (I doubt it will happen though) the easiest and cheapest solution is a second boot drive with Snow Leopard or partition your existing drive if you have room.
True, but I suspect in that case I'd end up just staying booted in SL anyway. Too much hassle to be going back and forth and not enough benefit in Lion to justify rebooting again to get back to it.