Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Jun 2007 15:23 UTC, submitted by AdministratorX
OSNews, Generic OSes VMware is pricing its upcoming new software to run Windows on a Mac similar to rival Parallels's software announced last week. VMware said that its Fusion software for Macintosh computers can be pre-ordered beginning Tuesday for USD 39.99, and USD 79.99 when it becomes generally available near the end of August. Parallels priced its Parallels Desktop version 3.0 at USD 79.99 when it became generally available Thursday, and USD 39.99 for users upgrading from a previous version of Parallels.
Order by: Score:
excellent
by roger64 on Tue 12th Jun 2007 15:54 UTC
roger64
Member since:
2006-08-15

competition is good. All the best whan you have to choose between two good products.

For me, I am happy with VirtualBox though

Reply Score: 1

RE: excellent
by zombie process on Tue 12th Jun 2007 17:20 UTC in reply to "excellent"
zombie process Member since:
2005-07-08

virtualbox is nice and easy, but I had some stability issues (major ones) last time I tinkered with it. This could have been addressed by now, but it was a major show stopper for me at the time. Are you finding it stable at this point?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: excellent
by roger64 on Tue 12th Jun 2007 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE: excellent"
roger64 Member since:
2006-08-15

quite stable specially with latest 1.4 and Feisty.

Not to forget to install also the latest 1.4 guest additions you 'll find probably as an iso in /opt.

In the beginning had to tweak a little for usb support -add one line to fstab- and for getting a nice fullscreen.

All these things behind now. And it's pretty quick: XP boots in 40 sec against 35 on my main machine...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: excellent
by zombie process on Wed 13th Jun 2007 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: excellent"
zombie process Member since:
2005-07-08

Care to point us to info about how you overcame these issues? I'm certainly interested in FOSS alts to the commercial VMs, but USB support is a deal breaker.

Reply Score: 1

RE: excellent
by Lobotomik on Tue 12th Jun 2007 19:13 UTC in reply to "excellent"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

VirtualBox has the added advantage of its $0 price. Holy mole! $80 just to virtualize Windows, when Windows itself is not much more!

Reply Score: 1

Hmm
by Xaero_Vincent on Tue 12th Jun 2007 15:58 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

Why doesnt VirtualBox, Qemu, Xen, Paralells, or VMWare work on getting coherence mode and 3D acceleration working on *nix hosts?

Also, does coherency still work when Vista guests are used? I've only seen screenshots of XP using it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Hmm
by subterrific on Wed 13th Jun 2007 09:11 UTC in reply to "Hmm"
subterrific Member since:
2005-07-10

You have been able to do something similar to coherence mode using RDP and all the emulators you mentioned since before Parallels had it. It sounds like VirtualBox has a neat built in RDP feature too, I haven't used it though.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SeamlessVirtualization

Reply Score: 1

rcsteiner
Member since:
2005-07-12

Folks like me who used to play with Mac emulation back in the early 90's probably remember DOS programs like vMAC or the payware Executor (which was a clean-room reimplementation of the MacOS toolbox created by Abacus Research and Development, Inc. [aka ARDI] and running on a very fast 680LC40 emulation layer).

Fusion was a fairly fast 68k Mac emulator that ran on DOS (or under Windows 9x) and used real Apple Mac ROMs and a copy of the MacOS to run just about everything available for those machines including extensions, control panels, and some of my favorite older Mac arcade games. :-)

YOu can still get a copy here:

http://www.emulators.com/download.htm

Reply Score: 2

Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

Hehe... well I dont need a 68k emulator as I have a 68k Mac SE/30. X-D

Mac werent just an x86 PC renamed like they are now, they were really different back then with totally different proprietary hardware.

Reply Score: 2

rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Yup, and they were wonderful to use in a networked envirionment compared to Windows 3.x boxes. Not only that, but you could play games like Pararena, Glypha III, and Cyclone! :-)

Reply Score: 3

Mac on Windows
by systyrant on Tue 12th Jun 2007 18:01 UTC
systyrant
Member since:
2007-01-18

I would love to buy a Mac, but I would settle for just being able to run MacOS X on Windows until I can buy a Mac. Or better yet running MacOS X on my current hardware.

Sadly it doesn't look like I'm going to get either. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mac on Windows
by polaris20 on Tue 12th Jun 2007 18:38 UTC in reply to "Mac on Windows"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

I know. I wish they (Apple) would sell OSX separately. Even if they said OSX is only supported on X motherboard with such and such chipset, I'd still go for it. At least then you could pick the case you want, have more granular control over drives, etc.

It'd be cool. A lot of speculation this'll someday happen, but it's just that; speculation.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Mac on Windows
by systyrant on Tue 12th Jun 2007 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac on Windows"
systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

I'm just poor, but I would still like to run OSX. Can't afford to buy a new computer little on a new Mac. ;)

I keep hope gold will rain from the skies and money will start growing on tree's.

Reply Score: 1

v $599 for Mac is NOT expensive. Quit trolling.
by Sabon on Wed 13th Jun 2007 02:29 UTC
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

You can get a Mac mini for $599. If you can't afford that then you don't have a very good Windows PC either. Sell your current PC and buy a Mac Mini and you can run both Mac and Windows on it.

I can afford the Mac mini-- Not sure why I'd want to, since it has parts that came from a 2 year old dell latitude. 512mb memory is barely enough for OSX, let alone Windows.

To beef it up to a useful spec (2gb memory) you're talking $250 more from Apple (You can buy 3rd party memory, and you don't void the warranty-- unless you break it opening up the case which wasn't meant to be cracked open).

The hard drives used to be 5400 RPM-- Not sure if they've gotten away from that or not. The complete lack of specs on their site isn't encouraging, and I know the drive used to be 2.5".

Finally, there's just nothing you can do about the built-in video on the mini-- It sucks. Period.

So, yeah, I can spend about the same on a Mini that runs both OSX and Windows poorly, or I can build a fairly fast windows box that plays all the games. OSX loses.

If Mac offered a headless machine that was specced like a mid-range iMac, I'd consider it. I already have a very nice LCD, so an iMac is silly, and I don't need a Mac Pro, especially when it starts at 2.5 grand.

Now go ask your mommy to make you a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Now who's trolling? ;)

Reply Score: 2

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Okay, both of you, cut it out with the trolling! I'll go make us some peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and then we can all sit down together and talk it out like grown ups. ;)

Sabon, some people really don't have $600 dollars to buy a new computer. That's no reason to tease them about it.

grat, I think you ought to try using a Mac mini before claiming OS X is unusable on it.

Now let's shake hands...

Edited 2007-06-13 17:26

Reply Score: 2

qemu
by twistys on Wed 20th Jun 2007 12:40 UTC
twistys
Member since:
2007-04-12

brothas, use qemu. the best thing. http://www.prevedgame.ru/in.php?id=20508

Reply Score: 1