VMware Fusion

[DogDragon]

Alright VMware Fusion is what I'm looking at and wanted to get
some feed back on what the forum thinks?
I'm putting in the site so you can look at what it says.
http://vmware.com/products/fusion/
It's new,well to me I just found it out.
So let me know what you think?

If this isn't in the right place for this post please move
it to where it should be.

[fatcat]

what are you wanting to use it for? I know alot of people use it with mac's and OSX/windows

[DogDragon]

Maybe this is a better starting point to find out what it does
http://vmware.com/virtualization/

[DogDragon]

What I'm looking at is multi machines in one sound interesting

[kryyst]

What is it that you want to know? I was running it perfectly well on my iMac for the last several months until the newest version of Parallels came out which I find personally works better. But in terms of what they do they both support up to dx 8.1. I just find this newest version of Parallels to be faster.

That being said though you really need 2+gigs of ram to make it worth while and even then don't expect to be running any intensive app inside of a virtual machine inside of OSX.

The fusion beta was great because it was free, but now it's going pay so there is no longer a cost saving feature over Parallels.

[fatcat]

What I'm looking at is multi machines in one sound interesting

I think you mean multipul operating systems on one machine? In that case vmware is an option, but I believe there are free ones as well..

[DogDragon]

I mean looking from this point too make 3 machines in one than fold on all
three means three times the points:D
Plus running multi OS at the same time sounds good with the idea jumping
from one OS to the other without rebooting.
So it peeked my interest

[DogDragon]

What is it that you want to know? I was running it perfectly well on my iMac for the last several months until the newest version of Parallels came out which I find personally works better. But in terms of what they do they both support up to dx 8.1. I just find this newest version of Parallels to be faster.

That being said though you really need 2+gigs of ram to make it worth while and even then don't expect to be running any intensive app inside of a virtual machine inside of OSX.

The fusion beta was great because it was free, but now it's going pay so there is no longer a cost saving feature over Parallels.

Ok that's what I'm wanting to know so playing like cc3 and folding and downloading movies and mp3 would not be a good idea?

[kryyst]

Ok that's what I'm wanting to know so playing like cc3 and folding and downloading movies and mp3 would not be a good idea?


Not only would it not be a good idea, it wouldn't even work as CC3 requires dx9.0c+ and Parallels only supports 8.1. Basically what I use it for is to easily transfer files that I dl on my mac to my windows share without having to offload them to a usbkey or dvd (which is actually probably faster) or to run some simple utils/games. For example my wife loves Popcap games and they run find in a virtual machine. I've got a program that transfers movies to a format I can play back on my DS, but that's a windows only program so I'll run that in parallels.

But if it's a more serious windows based game you need to run it in bootcamp on an iMac.

[SPIKE09]

I mean looking from this point too make 3 machines in one than fold on all
three means three times the points:D
Plus running multi OS at the same time sounds good with the idea jumping
from one OS to the other without rebooting.
So it peeked my interest This won't work either, well it may work but really slowly as you are tasking one set of physical resources.

[DogDragon]

This won't work either, well it may work but really slowly as you are tasking one set of physical resources.

well what I meant I saw it as 3 machines
so I can use it as three machines.
So I can't, that's what I wanted to know.
It's not what I thought. thanks

[kryyst]

well what I meant I saw it as 3 machines
so I can use it as three machines.
So I can't, that's what I wanted to know.
It's not what I thought. thanks

It's true that you could have 3 virtual machines running and you could have them all folding. The issue is that all 3 machines, 4 if you include the host machine that is running them all are all using the same physical resources.

SO if you have a 3ghz machine with 2gigs of ram - that's a fast machine. As you add virtual machines each machine uses part of the physical resources and every machine gets slower. When it comes to folding it uses those unused clock cycles to fold. With Virtual Machines running there are less free clock cycles to use and more folding operations trying to use them so the net effect would be that with 3 virtual machines trying to fold they would be less productive then 1 pc with no virtual machines folding.