VMware Communities
peterwor
Contributor
Contributor

Snow Leopard & VM Ware Fusion missed the boat folks

I'm sorry but I just have to gripe here a tad. I've been a VM Ware supporter for years and my company (IBM) uses VM Ware all over the damn place. I realize that Fusion represents such a teeny tiny piece of the market for VM Ware but I'm still pretty put off that with all the open (for one of the first times) technical reference for Snow leopard and all the ADC + special company Snow Leopard betas (and I know we had Snow leopard builds practically nightly for months, with NO architectural changes), I honestly don't believe that VM Ware has a leg to stand on not to have a product virtually ready to release tomorrow that will run Fusion in the 64 kernel. Any excuse is just blowing smoke. Its purely a $ decision plain and simple

I'm sorry but there just is NO excuse in my book. To all the VM ware employees defending yourselves with the ol "well betas are always changing and blah blah blah, you either aren't very plugged in or you think we're stupid, I'm sorry but the 64bit kernel architecture and EFI architecture of snow leopard hasn't changed in over 3 months. So I just don't think you guys have a leg to stand on to not have a product ready, Qa'ed and all.

What it says to me is that Fusion is too small a market for VM ware to really care about period. To all of us who are hungry for a version that will run with the 64bit kernel turned on, don't hold your breath, I'd be willing to bet its October before we see that product in GA. There is just NO EXCUSE for that, it just tells us that Fusion isn't a priority with VM Ware and you'll be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.

This may be the straw that finally drags me back to Parallels, I was on the Parallels band wagon since day one and I gave it up because of VM Ware's solid reputation but quite frankly as far as I'm concerned VM ware has been sitting on their butts for way too long, we haven't seen anything new and worth mentioning for months, maybe longer. Face it folks Fusion is too small for VM Ware to really put much effort into. It could be time to go with the hungry company that does one thing and does it pretty darn well. VM ware has too many money makers that are sucking up all the good resources to put too much of a rush or effort into lil ol' Fusion. Fusion is small potatoes to VM ware and it's always going to be that way, so for those of us who are thinking we're going see something really cool really soon. Forget it.

I'm truly disappointed VM Ware, you guys could have really ripped the virtualization market wide open with just a fraction of effort and had a product ready to go , QA'ed and all when Snow Leopard comes out tomorrow but you dropped the ball big time, I'm betting that ball stays dropped for awhile too.

It's a darn shame too.

Oh well, I guess we''ll see won't we. I sure as heck hope I'm wrong but I'm afraid I'm not going to be. Another lost opportunity because the al mighty dollar isn't in Fusion's favor it's in Window's VM ware servers etc.

Oh well, so long Fusion.... It's been real and it could have been great but your timing and marketing is so Windows centric why even bother with Fusion?

Cheers,

Everyone, (I honestly hope I'm wrong but I don't think so)

Reply
0 Kudos
33 Replies
WoodyZ
Immortal
Immortal

You can't even spell VMware right!

Reply
0 Kudos
peterwor
Contributor
Contributor

Your reply was riveting, what's your point ?

Oh, I get it maybe you think i'm talking about another company and none of what I said applied.

Yeah that must be it... Great post.

Reply
0 Kudos
admin
Immortal
Immortal

Whoa, calm down there. A few key points:

  1. A 64-bit kernel does not bring any advantage to Fusion, or really any other app I know of. In fact, throwing around 64-bit pointers where they're not needed wastes important (and scarce) cache space, which causes performance penalties.

  2. The only Macs that will boot the 64-bit kernel by default are recent XServes running Snow Leopard Server. Yes, a number of models can boot the 64-bit kernel if you hold the right keys or make the right edits, but see point 1.

  3. QA is more than saying "yeah, it should work, maybe". While there haven't been much changes to 10.6 in the last few seeds, it's always possible that something unexpected breaks. Some bugs we reported didn't get fixed until the last seed, but what if those fixes had broken something else? It is completely irresponsible to sign off on something that isn't final; until very recently, Snow Leopard wasn't. Even then, QAing is not a process that happens overnight.

I'm glad you're excited about Snow Leopard, but IMO your expectations are unrealistic.

Reply
0 Kudos
Pat_Lee
Virtuoso
Virtuoso

Peter,

We have been testing VMware Fusion 2.0.5 all along with Snow Leopard seeds and making changes as needed on our side and reporting bugs to Apple along the way.

Today, I am happy to announce that VMware Fusion 2.0.5 now offers experimental support for 32-bit Snow Leopard. VMware Fusion 2.0.5 is working great so far on the final release of Snow Leopard.

http://blogs.vmware.com/teamfusion/2009/08/vmware-fusion-2-and-max-os-x-snow-leopard-even-better.htm...

Before we take 32-bit Snow Leopard out of experimental support, we still need to run our complete regression cycle on the final release of Snow Leopard to make sure everything works the way we expect. However, it is working quite well so far and I am optimistic on the final results.

I am personally running Snow Leopard on my MacBook Pro and it is working quite well with VMware Fusion. I even created a new XP VM today and it was working really well.

With regards to 64-bit support, it is something we are taking VERY seriously as part of our product planning. It is a significant undertaking to get it right and also work within the constraints of our product roadmap. If you are interested in beta testing future products, please sign up at: http://info.vmware.com/content/6693_FusionTest_REG

So, please enjoy VMware Fusion 2.0.5 with 32-bit Snow Leopard today!

Best,

Pat Lee

Director, Personal Desktop Products

VMware

Reply
0 Kudos
peterwor
Contributor
Contributor

Like you said a few key points....

a 64 Bit kernel doesn't bring any advantage to Fusion? HUH? Uh, what about running large memory addressable and true 64 bit kexts ? that's not an advantage ? I think you missed something there

The MMC and kernel caching schemas are absolutely faster running in 64 bit mode, if fusion can't take advantage of that then someone made a mistake,

in fact they are almost 30%-50% faster in 64 kernel mode. Especially when all 4 units ( processor core, EFI, Kernel boot & Kernel) are running in 64 bit mode, actually I think you have your math backwards in this case. the kernel unit register space is 64 bits, so actually running in 32 mode is actually wasting space and slowing the machine down because it has to add 3 extra instructions for every memory. calculation, move, etc Why aren't 64 bit pointers needed? If the entire chip architecture is 64bit , finally, how can "Throwing around 64 pointers" waste space, the register space is 64 bit, and 32 addressing and caching slows the heck out of the kernel and wastes space and timing if its not running in 64 bit mode, by adding the step up padding and logic to handle 32 bit pointers coming out of the kernel.Even of the kernel isn't running in 64bit mode its internal registers are still 64 bits wide. Pumping 32 bits through wider pipelining and branch prediction actually does more harm, speed wise, then the other way around.

As far as QA'ing I've been writing software since graduating 1978, 10 of those years with the DOD, I know what it takes to QA software and if you were getting the Apple partner builds you would have seen their statement that the kernel architecture was finalized in June, and VMWare could have at least had something close. Well see, I'll stick to my October GA release of anything from VMWare and I still believe its because the fusion revenue probably doesn't even pay for its development and QA'ing a product takes a long time. Especially when you start late.

But that's just my $02 worth.

Reply
0 Kudos
dimavs
Contributor
Contributor

  1. A 64-bit kernel does not bring any advantage to Fusion, or really any other app I know of.

  2. The only Macs that will boot the 64-bit kernel by default are recent XServes running Snow Leopard Server.

You are not quite right.

1. I already mentioned that my 3g modem works only with 64 bit kernel (native drivers from Apple, and I don't want to be bothered installing drivers from manufacturer for 32 bit kernel, they are quite buggy and causing Kernel Panic all the time). So, it's just not convenient for me to switch between 32 bit and 64 bit kernels all the time.

2. My MBP 4,1 (early 2008) boots 64 bit kernel by default.

Reply
0 Kudos
dimavs
Contributor
Contributor

If you are interested in beta testing future products, please sign up at: http://info.vmware.com/content/6693_FusionTest_REG

Yeah, I've registered, I think, even couple of times. Waiting.

So, please enjoy VMware Fusion 2.0.5 with 32-bit Snow Leopard today!

I can't. Really. Sorry, it's not an enjoyment, it's a pain for me.

Reply
0 Kudos
admin
Immortal
Immortal

According to the seed notes for Snow leopard that model of MBP should be 64bit Capable. It should not be 64bit by Default. Have you modified the boot so that 64bit is default?

Reply
0 Kudos
dimavs
Contributor
Contributor

According to the seed notes for Snow leopard that model of MBP should be 64bit Capable. It should not be 64bit by Default. Have you modified the boot so that 64bit is default?

No. That's my com.apple.Boot.plist:

PS OK, that's weird. On the other hand, "nvram -p" returns "boot-args arch=x86_64". I definitely haven't changed it by myself.

PPS May be I've done it a year ago, when I've tried SL for the first time. Sorry, mea culpa.

Reply
0 Kudos
admin
Immortal
Immortal

what about running large memory addressable and true 64 bit kexts

64-bit address space != 64-bit kexts.

The MMC and kernel caching schemas are absolutely faster running in 64 bit mode, if fusion can't take advantage of that then someone made a mistake,

in fact they are almost 30%-50% faster in 64 kernel mode. Especially when all 4 units ( processor core, EFI, Kernel boot & Kernel) are running in 64 bit mode

Do you have data to back this up? If so, sure, Fusion will benefit. However, Apple has done a bunch of optimizations so that even the 32-bit Snow Leopard kernel is significantly faster for certain operations; be sure your data compares 64-bit 10.6 against 32-bit 10.6 (and not 32-bit 10.5).

the kernel unit register space is 64 bits, so actually running in 32 mode is actually wasting space and slowing the machine down because it has to add 3 extra instructions for every memory. calculation, move, etc

Registers may be 64-bit, but what about cache word size? I admit I don't know about current processors (it's been a while since I took Computer Architecture) but your claim about wasted space is only true if the cache only works on 64-bit words. Also, I'm not clear on what you mean by 3 extra instructions for each memory/calculation/move/etc - again, it's been a while, but that doesn't match what I remember. And with ever-increasing clock speeds, keeping the cache full (and avoiding hitting RAM) is more important than CPU cycles.

To be clear, I'm not involved with Fusion's kernel modules; my knowledge (or lack thereof) does not impact Fusion's development. It's just that what you've said doesn't match my expectations.

Reply
0 Kudos
benc1
Contributor
Contributor

Nice rant. But relax - you are wrong on many levels.

Unless you have an xserve you won't be running a 64 bit kernel anyway.

I think half the problem is I want a 64 bit kernel syndrome. Yes I would expect a 64 bit kernel to be quicker but given how much time the os spends in kernel land I doubt anyone would notice the difference. I dare say it will become the default boot option at some point in the not too distant future. To make it so now would be asking for problems. The important stuff - 64 bit apps etc - that all runs 64 bit - regardless of kernel being 32 or 64. Really you are worrying over nothing.

If you check the parallels forums you will find remarkably similar discussions. Also a discussion about 64 bit extensions which contradicts your 3 months statement.

The constant suggestions on these boards to try the fusion betas suggests to me that vmware are working on sorting out 64 bit kernel support. I have a sneaking suspicion by the time 64 bit kernel mode becomes the default - fusion will have been ready for some time.

From what I can tell on the very day SL was released vmware announced - yes it works - but if you hold down 6 and 4 while booting it won't work.

So don't hold down 6 and 4. Smiley Wink

Reply
0 Kudos
issaco
Contributor
Contributor

Is this what you mean by "working well"

Flaky Unity:

28/08/09 10:55:05 PM	[0x0-0xef0ef].com.vmware.fusion[22204]	Fri Aug 28 22:55:05 9000.local vmware[22204] <Error>: CGContextScaleCTM: invalid context 0x0
28/08/09 10:55:07 PM	[0x0-0xef0ef].com.vmware.fusion[22204]	Fri Aug 28 22:55:07 9000.local vmware[22204] <Error>: CGBitmapContextCreate: unsupported parameter combination: 8 integer bits/component; 32 bits/pixel; 3-component color space; kCGImageAlphaFirst; 512 bytes/row.
28/08/09 10:55:07 PM	[0x0-0xef0ef].com.vmware.fusion[22204]	Fri Aug 28 22:55:07 9000.local vmware[22204] <Error>: CGContextScaleCTM: invalid context 0x0
28/08/09 10:55:07 PM	[0x0-0xef0ef].com.vmware.fusion[22204]	Fri Aug 28 22:55:07 9000.local vmware[22204] <Error>: CGBitmapContextCreate: unsupported parameter combination: 8 integer bits/component; 32 bits/pixel; 3-component color space; kCGImageAlphaFirst; 512 bytes/row.
(X1000)

Leaking:

28/08/09 10:49:08 PM	vmware[22204]	*** __NSAutoreleaseNoPool(): Object 0x1408c10 of class NSCFString autoreleased with no pool in place - just leaking
28/08/09 10:49:08 PM	vmware[22204]	*** __NSAutoreleaseNoPool(): Object 0x1411e90 of class NSCFArray autoreleased with no pool in place - just leaking
28/08/09 10:49:08 PM	vmware[22204]	*** __NSAutoreleaseNoPool(): Object 0x1412010 of class NSPathStore2 autoreleased with no pool in place - just leaking

I hope a 2.06 is on the way soon... WTB NDA and Beta

Reply
0 Kudos
Spunkmeyer
Contributor
Contributor

This may be the straw that finally drags me back to Parallels, I was on the Parallels band wagon since day one and I gave it up because of VM Ware's solid reputation but quite frankly as far as I'm concerned VM ware has been sitting on their butts for way too long, we haven't seen anything new and worth mentioning for months, maybe longer. Face it folks Fusion is too small for VM Ware to really put much effort into. It could be time to go with the hungry company that does one thing and does it pretty darn well. VM ware has too many money makers that are sucking up all the good resources to put too much of a rush or effort into lil ol' Fusion. Fusion is small potatoes to VM ware and it's always going to be that way, so for those of us who are thinking we're going see something really cool really soon. Forget it.

Easy there. killer. Parallels is listed on Apples website as not compatible with Snow Leopard:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3258

Maybe it's a more complex task than your beautiful mind is willing to admit.

Reply
0 Kudos
ColoradoMarmot
Champion
Champion

You forget: Apple moved the release date up by a month. I'll grant any company a grace period until September 30th to have 10.6 support officially released. After that, they are fair game, but responsible vendors wait until they get the gold code before certifying compliance. Given Apple's secrecy, no one was sure exactly what was on the DVD, until today.

Reply
0 Kudos
msaum
Contributor
Contributor

Why the rant?

I find that 2.0.5 is running better on 10.6 than it did on 10.5. I'm happy, and looking forward to the next release.

Reply
0 Kudos
dimavs
Contributor
Contributor

Easy there. killer. Parallels is listed on Apples website as not compatible with Snow Leopard:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3258

Current version of Parallels is 4.

Reply
0 Kudos
javiergw
Contributor
Contributor

Pat LeeDirector, Personal Desktop ProductsVMwareI've been testing Mac OS X Snow Leopard Server" is sound and drag and drop working fine.

I hope you answer me.

Javier Reynaldo Gutierrez Wando.

Reply
0 Kudos
hookbill
Contributor
Contributor

Wow tough crowd around here. Want Parallels? Obviously you don't have a blackberry, Parallels does not work with blackberry desktop manager. But VMware does. I think that you build the software around the OS certainly but I'm willing to hold off on purchasing Snow Leopard until VMware comes up with a compatible solution.

Reply
0 Kudos
Pat_Lee
Virtuoso
Virtuoso

I've been testing <span class="jive-thread-reply-body-container">VMware Fusion 2.0.5 with Mac OS X Leopard Server, I've installed VMware tools and I've noticed that there are two important features that are not working. "1. Sound. 2. Drag and Drop (from the virtual machine to my desktop)."

Anyways i would like to know if in <span class="jive-thread-reply-body-container">"Mac OS X Snow Leopard" and "<span class="jive-thread-reply-body-container">Mac OS X Snow Leopard Server" is sound and drag and drop working fine.

Drag and Drop is not a feature for Mac OS X Leopard Server/Snow Leopard Server guests. Mac OS Server guests do support Shared Folders, but they do not support drag and drop.

Sound is not a currently a supported feature with Mac OS X Leopard Server/Snow Leopard Server guests. Since we are supporting Server OS, sound has not been a priority at this time. It is something we seriously considering as we plan future products.

Pat

Reply
0 Kudos