Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
I, like millions of others, use macs at home and windows fista at work. Someone tell me objectively please, is running windows via Parallels or VMWare the real thing, or is it one of those quasi - underwater experiences where everything runs ultra slowly and you feel like you're going to die of a panic attack before anything happens? #parallels5
@thatsmrpotatohead2U: It works really well, at least in my experience. I use VMWare Fusion 2 to run a Windows 7 virtual machine and it works really well. The only headache is that sometimes the control key acts up when I'm using Unity.
(Unity is where Windows apps run in os x) #parallels5
@bagellord: This looks to me (yes a newbie at it) another layer of system level software, do you see this kind of thing eventually merging with system software so that Fusion, Unity etc effectively run in the background and all you get are apps that run together without any kinks cos they are from different universes, as it were? #parallels5
@nevergetitwet: Because as far as I know you can't use a bootcamp partition with VirtualBox. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I like having boot camp on my laptop for battery savings. #parallels5
oh god damit I knew they were going to do this right after the fusion 3 release..now I need to wait on some reviews before I switch back and upgrade.. #parallels5
I found out the hard way that Parallels and Fusion don't coexist well using the same Boot Camp partition. But with all the issues I've had with Fusion so far, I'm curious about Parallels. If it goes on sale, I might give it another shot. #parallels5
I've been using Virtualbox 3.0 to run 64 bit Windows 7 on the 64 bit SL kernel, waiting for Fusion. It's been running so well, I see no reason to shell out the upgrade fee.
In fact, I feel it's BS that VMWare didn't at least patch fusion 2.x to make it run on the 64-bit kernel.
In my opinion, this is what makes Mac OS X better than any Windows regurgitation: the ability to run Windows on a Mac machine. This way, the best of both worlds are realized, but the fact that it is supported on one machine is just awesome. #parallels5
@red_alert360: Your logic is flawed. By saying an operating system that can only run on specific hardware is better than one that can run on virtually anything is backwards.
@red_alert360: It is very feasible to do the same on a windows system. Of course, Apple has no intentions on letting PC users run OSX on a PC and the effect is exactly what is happening to you. You think that been able to run mac and windows at the same time is a Mac sole feature... In my opinion it is very stupid to support a company that puts so many restrictions on you, thanks God Apple is not the dominant software company. #parallels5
@HelloYouAll: I think you mean "Apple isn't dumb enough to foot the bill for supporting every crappy piece of hardware out there".
I don't want Apple to run on every PC, because I would have to pay for that "privilege" and suffer the additional instability of a system that needs to be able to communicate with every piece of hardware ever made.
My WinXP machines are very stable, but Fusion 2 on my MBP still wins out in stability (0 crashes in 2 years on fusion, 2 for Dell Inspiron with same specs), thanks to Apple's tight hardware control. #parallels5
@mmmiles: Any Virtual Machine will be more stable than their real HW counterpart. Virtual machines are made to be stable with a set of generic and standard virtual devices that are known to work and don't suffer HW defects. Yet again, thanks God Apple is the underdog in this race. While MS gets criticized and ridiculed by Apple, they have to recognize that is MS the company that drivers innovation and change in the PC market, Apple is a big influence however, but if they were in MS position we would be having very nice looking and solid build systems using recessed technology renewed once they believe the market is ready to pay for something better. The PC industry would not be as free as it is now a days. #parallels5
I am currently running Vista 64 in a VM Machine - can I first upgrade to Fusion 3 and then upgrade the Win Virtual Machine to Win 7? Just to make it trickier, my Virtual Machine installation is also a Bootcamp partition. #fusion3
What percentage of the OS for Snow Leopard and Windows 7 is truly 64 bit? I understand they have been converting it pieces at a time, but there has been some debate in the developer community whether the speed improvements have been entirely from converting it or whether the re-write itself could have shown a significant amount of the improvement in 32 bit. Also, by merely supporting 64 bit, are we truly seeing the speed improvement through this support? I assume so, but we have had some experiences with ESX, depending on the cycle of the moon, that improvements like this have been minimal at best. #fusion3
@Monty: Well the 64-bit advantage primarily has to do with memory addressing I believe. With a 64-bit Snow Leopard machine running 64-bit VMWare Fusion, running 64-bit Windows 7, you'd have, first of all, a base OS that can address more than 4GB of ram (which is important if you want to give your Windows 7 Guest OS a significant amount of RAM). The more this filters down, it gives those crazy cats running Mac Pro's with 16GB of RAM the ability to run Windows 7 with 8GB of RAM.
In Snow Leopard, of the 25 or so System Processes in Activity Monitor, only two (lsd and kernel_task) are not 64-bit.
Most apps I run (Firefox, Filemaker Pro, Office 2008 etc) are still running in 32-bit mode.
One disturbing thing is that Adobe's Creative Suite 4 runs in 32-bit mode apparently. I would think, other than VMWare Fusion, that Photoshop would be the next application in line to receive gobs of RAM. . . . #fusion3
@matt buchanan: Brilliant - thank you, Matt. That was the reason we made some switches on our servers to 64 bit as well -- how quickly I forget. Clearly my memory is still stuck in the 8 bit world at 32K. #fusion3
11/04/09
11/04/09
(Unity is where Windows apps run in os x) #parallels5
11/05/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
In fact, I feel it's BS that VMWare didn't at least patch fusion 2.x to make it run on the 64-bit kernel.
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
I don't want Apple to run on every PC, because I would have to pay for that "privilege" and suffer the additional instability of a system that needs to be able to communicate with every piece of hardware ever made.
My WinXP machines are very stable, but Fusion 2 on my MBP still wins out in stability (0 crashes in 2 years on fusion, 2 for Dell Inspiron with same specs), thanks to Apple's tight hardware control. #parallels5
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/11/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
In Snow Leopard, of the 25 or so System Processes in Activity Monitor, only two (lsd and kernel_task) are not 64-bit.
Most apps I run (Firefox, Filemaker Pro, Office 2008 etc) are still running in 32-bit mode.
One disturbing thing is that Adobe's Creative Suite 4 runs in 32-bit mode apparently. I would think, other than VMWare Fusion, that Photoshop would be the next application in line to receive gobs of RAM. . . . #fusion3
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09