VMware Fusion

DogDragonDogDragon Jacksonville, Fl Icrontian
edited September 2007 in Science & Tech
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.

Comments

  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou Icrontian
    edited September 2007
    what are you wanting to use it for? I know alot of people use it with mac's and OSX/windows
  • DogDragonDogDragon Jacksonville, Fl Icrontian
    edited September 2007
    Maybe this is a better starting point to find out what it does
    http://vmware.com/virtualization/
  • DogDragonDogDragon Jacksonville, Fl Icrontian
    edited September 2007
    What I'm looking at is multi machines in one sound interesting
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited September 2007
    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.
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou Icrontian
    edited September 2007
    DogDragon wrote:
    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..
  • DogDragonDogDragon Jacksonville, Fl Icrontian
    edited September 2007
    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
  • DogDragonDogDragon Jacksonville, Fl Icrontian
    edited September 2007
    kryyst wrote:
    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?
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited September 2007
    DogDragon wrote:
    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.
  • SPIKE09SPIKE09 Scatland
    edited September 2007
    DogDragon wrote:
    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.
  • DogDragonDogDragon Jacksonville, Fl Icrontian
    edited September 2007
    SPIKE09 wrote:
    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
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited September 2007
    DogDragon wrote:
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.