VMWare Fusion Review
We’ve definitely given Parallels software it’s fair share of coverage but we’ve left VMWare’s Fusion out in the cold. I finally got a chance this week to sit down, install and use Fusion. Things didn’t start off too well, but over the course of my use, it did get smoother.
To test out Fusion I am using Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 on a Mac Pro 2×3.0GHz Intel Xeon, with 3GBs RAM.
When I first started up Fusion and ran through the setup, it locked up and refused to do anything. This happened at the point where you choose your installation source. I was using the image method. Fortunately, the second time it worked flawlessly.
The Windows installation process went very quickly; much faster then I can remember any Windows install in Parallels. During the install, my OS X system did seem to slow down significantly, though. The whole install process took about 15 minutes, which is quite quick for Windows. One thing I did enjoy about the Fusion installer is that you can input your username, password and product CD key and it will autofill all of that information during the install process. It also automatically installs the VMWare tools (mouse, video, etc drivers…) right away, while Parallels makes you manually do that.
Something that I didn’t seem to be able to choose was how much RAM I wanted to allocate to Windows. I have a feeling if I had chosen the more advanced setup option I would have been able to configure a few more options like RAM allocation.
VMWare’s Fusion supports the ability to use multiple processors, while Parallels doesn’t. For someone like me (and most any Intel Macintosh user), this is a great feature. This feature pretty much just gives you more power to the Windows system. You can set it to use up to 2 processors, so people with dual, quad or 8 core machines will really make the most of it.
The rest of the settings are very similar to Parallels, although the Sharing Folders feature doesn’t seem to work the same way it does in Parallels. You can access your Mac files from Windows, but it doesn’t look like you can access your Windows files from OS X. While it’s not a huge issue, it’s a nice ‘convenience’ feature.
Both Parallels and Fusion include features that let you work in Windows without it actually looking like you are. Parallels calls this feature Coherence mode, and Fusion calls it Unity. Both work and act the same for the most of it, but Parallels seems to have it working a bit more smoothly. This isn’t to say Unity is terrible, but it just looks and feels a lot smoother in Parallels.
I didn’t test much software in Windows (mostly because there’s a lack of it around here) but the Windows system itself seemed quite stable and ran quickly without any hiccups. VMWare also includes an option to run 3D games and supports DirectX 8.1. It also requires a bit of hacking around in the Fusion preference files so that the mouse works correctly. Fusion also supports about 1/4th the amount of games that Parallels does. Parallels also supports OpenGL while Fusion does not.
It seems most common devices like USB flash drives, CDs and DVDs or an external drive work fine. I am not sure how well (or badly) it works with PDAs or other devices, though.
While you could do a lot more in-depth testing with this application, I think for the simple home user who needs to run a few Windows applications, VMWare is a good solution. It’s very easy to set up and use. I think if you’re looking to run games in Windows, you should use either Boot Camp or Parallels.
Overall, I would actually choose Parallels or Boot Camp to Fusion. All of them are solid products, I just don’t think Fusion is there yet. It’s definitely coming along, and probably within the next 2-3 versions it’ll be a really great application.
There is a trial version of Fusion available to download.
I enjoyed reading your “climate Change” soapbox, but there is way more to global warming than your media sources let on or really understand. And most scientists do not believe in Global Warming, but do believe in Climate Change; however if you ask only a certain population of people you will get the answer you are looking for. Ask a New Englander which team is the best in football? I think you would get a bias answer. The difference between Global Warming and Climate Change you ask – well there was a distinct difference until only recently as Global Warming was anthropogenic whereas Climate Change was a natural change. That is one flaw (of many) in your argument. Climate Change is happening, no matter what we do as a species, in the past, present, or future. We know that climate change can happen rapidly, over the course of decades. Our planet goes through cycles of warming and cooling, think Ice Age. It still is not close to the temperatures our planet endured during the Mesozoic (think Dinos). Species are dying, some due to destroying their habitat, I will not deny that, but 99% of all species on our planet have already gone extinct! If a species is too specialized and cannot adapt it dies. Cruel, but that is Darwinian logic.
I am all for cutting back on fossil fuels, etc. But the problem I have is all the “science” that predicts these changes, yet we can’t accurately predict the weather next week. To just do groundwater modeling on a 10 acre area takes days of processing and yet we assume that we can model the planet based on limited data. Basically we cannot stop the planet from warming up, it is going to happen, either by plate tectonic activity, increased solar radiation, etc. It can cool down via volcanic activity or meteorite impact (again the poor dinos). So while decreasing carbon dioxide and limiting deforestation are important, they will not stop climate change. You are correct in that our planet is getting to its limit with respect to population, the Easter Islands are a great micro-study in this idea and what can happen. But do we have the right to demand a third world country to stop developing so that we, in developed countries, can enjoy our way of life? Thought of the day.
Your Host, Jim Boydston, should not be quite so complacent and may well feel otherwise if he lives long enough to see the sea levels rise several feet.
All of our certainty does not affect whether the group we have decided to believe, or been convinced by, is correct. What is at least as fascinating to me is how proponents of each view treats those in the opposing camp.
The Wikipedia entry on the controversy (which is by no means as settled as the soapbox entry suggests) shows that folks on both sides have been known to use less-than-honorable tactics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
I suggest that it is not simply “fringe scientists and politicians” in doubt of the “consensus”, and to suggest so simply serves to illustrate how someone on one side treats disbelievers in the perspective they find compelling.
An example of a “fringe” scientist is Mr. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. I would be amused to hear a duel of sources and ideas between our soapbox editor and Mr. Lindzen. Some of the latter’s reasoning and conclusions can be found here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
I do not think that we humans have been particularly good stewards of our planet and its resources. Our greed, short-sightedness and ignorance have all contributed to more examples of this than can be counted. We may, or may not, bear the blame for the changes in our climate. A real danger that I see is that in rushing to “do something”, we may inadvertently cause other unanticipated problems with profound effects (such as the current food shortages contributed to by the rapid growth of demand for ethanol fuel).
The next few years should give us a better picture of who is closer to seeing things the way they really are. It will be interesting to see if Time magazine, and the scientific experts that they collected who saw a looming ice age will get any closer than they did in 1972.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html