I am also user of Parallels. So far, I love Fusion and its excellent USB support (better than Parallels, including the latest pre-beta2 build). I do miss the Coherence feature, it truly makes the Windows experience non intrusive. Anyone else out there missing it too? Any comments from VMware on that too?
nautiazn85 Im with you. It IS stupid
It's the difference between focusing on tasks and focusing on the operating system. I'm looking for the ability to enable users to run specific applications in their preferred operating systems. If we wanted to run Windows, we'd be running Windows.
Sure, we can push vendors to port applications, but Microsoft? AutoCAD? Jimbo academic software company that sells 200 copies a year to Greek professors? Not likely.
As for 100% of the time -- VMWare has really sharp people working for it and that's why we're willing to give them money. Parallels' Coherence is working pretty well.
>Im with you. It IS ...
It is, what it is. IMO, I figure the main use case for (in)Coherence is a gloried way for the gazillion web designers out there to view their content in IE7 and hit reload. I wouldn't use it for anything more substantial.
This is why I proposed the SeamlessRDP approach. Again, imo, we're headed towards the kind of application virtualization where application windows possibly from different OS (and OS versions) will be projected from local and remote virtual machines in the data center where the backend will be managed for availability, load-balancing, security, ..., and backup. Some people may recognize this as a Citrix PS farm, with the exception of the use of VMs and much less a locally running VM.
Yes, but this is the Fusion Beta forum. Obviously to run VMs locally on your Mac, not a Datacenter...
I **NEED** daily use of Visio, Outlook and less frequently Project and Access. There are Mac options for Visio and Project and I can fuss around on the Mac side. For Access and Outlook (specially for companies that are Windows only shops and that are using both MS Exchange and a Windows only VPN access - read Checkpoint), there is no easy way around.
I agree SeamlessRDP is an option if you consider a datacenter approach, but to run LOCALLY a Windows VM and give an excellent OS X integration, I still WANT something like Coherence in my MacBook Pro... Isn't Fusion exactly that: run locally a VM on your own local Mac?
Call it stupid if you want, my need won't just go away.
I would prefer that VMWare would spend their time on writing kickass USB2 support and such, and booting from real partitions instead. I really care less about the Coherence. I think booting for real partitions are more important then Coherence. If I want such thing I would be using CrossOver (Visio works fine with that, btw) instead.
And the support of Parallels is shocking bad with BootCamp it totally f--cked up my MacOSX installation. It was really 'great' to reinstall everything, I will be using Fusion for sure. If they will come up with some nice bundle of Fusion + Workstation that would be awesome.
This is an old thread, but I figured I'd add my 5 pennies..
I have used both Parallels and VMware.
I launch VMWare about 1/10 of the times I launch Parallels for one simple reason. Coherence.
I am sure I agree with others who say VMWARE kicks Parallels Tail when it comes to support and speed, but Coherence is the trade off that makes me use parallels.
I need to run windows programs, I don't want to look at a windows desktop, etc...
I have this belief that if VMWARE implements a coherence style windowing system for the CONSUMER who has no desire to run 50 programs to implement this type of feature (no hate to the guy who said download this and install that) Thats not what Mac User appreciate. We appreciate the fact that we can hit one button and a neat feature works.
Just my opinion on the matter.
FInally, if crossover was great, then the joy I get from the various prograsm that will run in crossover woule be added to the list of programs that dont run in crossover. So the solution???? COherence mode.
Until I read the posts here expressing such enthusiasm about Coherence, I had never taken it seriously. I had seen the enthusing on the Parallels forums, but took this as yet another instance of pervasive fanboy-ism.
A longtime Mac and UNIX guy, I was compelled to become Windows literate after NeXT failed, and Apple was still stuck in the OS 9 doldrums while OSX was being developed. As a result, for some years I have run Mac and Windows boxes side by side on neighboring desks. I even took two notebooks when I went to Europe for several months. Now I can do the same thing with a single machine and dual monitors, and am happy as a clam. Given this usage pattern, I always regarded Coherence as little more than superfluous eye candy. It didn't occur to me that anyone would want to do the equivalent of running Windows apps within a Mac environment, as I switch easily between the two without really thinking about it, and I don't work on a MacBook, nor would want to when I can have a pair of good, cheap 24" monitors.
But trying to set aside my own bias, I do not think this thread can substitute for good market research. That said, a design philosophy that emphasizes getting the basics really right (like stability, USB support, external partitions, et. al) makes more immediate sense than adding refinements like Coherence, if even there are those who won't buy/use the product without it. Indeed, for this reason I'm not jumping for joy that I can now play PC games within Fusion, since it wouldn't have occurred to me to try in the first place and probably won't use it in the future.
That's all, folks.
My input to such a research program is that coherence is so very far down the list of things I need that I'd probably write something snarky. The z-axis management of Parallels' coherence is crude - Expose` is useless. Everything is on top or everything is on the bottom. It's two worlds trying to look like one and failing. Couple that with my Windows in a sandbox expectation and I find I far prefer using Desktop Manager and allow Windows it's own pane.
What I'd really like is dynamic resource allocation where I can run Solaris with 75% cpu availability, Windows with 10% cpu availability, and OS X with the rest. In a contest with eyecandy like coherence, functionality wins every time, here.
Count my vote as for "Coherence." XP only? It works fine for me with Win2k.
I'm all for Coherence-like functionality in Fusion 2.0. Let's work on getting functionality to work like DX8.1, 9 and OpenGL before we start adding gimmicks!
Personally, I'm extremely happy with you not using Quartz animations to do everything. While those are cool, I practically had a seizure when I tried fullscreen out in Parallels RC2 and it went insane (changing resolutions I believe) after the animation finished. Fadeouts are much cleaner.
~Keep up the great work
Personally, I don't care if WMware implements a Coherence-like feature. Odds are I am going to buy Fusion when it's out of beta regardless. But for you, Coherence is important and it's available now in Parallels. So for now, it sounds to me like Parallels is the way to go for you.
For your sake, I do hope VMware does add such a feature to Fusion, but I'd rather have them spend more time making the VM stable and officially support more guest OSes.
Although I really like Coherence, I agree with your post. I used to support Crossover, Transgaming, and Win 4 Lin. After about 20 failed attempts to renew my subscription from overseas, I gave up on Transgaming. Win for Lin made me mad for the same reason, with the same result.
Now I support Crossover, and Parallels. Oddly enough I am also beta testing a MS product at the current time. I'll probably spring for a retail copy of VMware after my next VA check comes in, so I'll be supporting VMware as well.
I personally don't care less about Coherence, it's cool to show off for a moment but you realise how limited it actually is in short order. I would much rather have a robust VM product to use that I know won't toast my OSX install, as just happened to me while running my bootcamp under Parallels (and has been happening to growing numbers of people now) which is why I am here now. No gimicks for me, just make the feature set work as it should and I will be a future happy customer. I think the Parallels folk have been falling over themselves trying to flesh out the feature set before actually getting it all to work reliably.
I havent figured out why I havent bought a Parallels key for $80. I'm just waiting it out w/ trial versions to see which is better.
I tried to teach my wife Coherence and she got confused about how to open her word docs from my folders on my Mac. Granted, I made the folder a shared folder and mapped it to the P drive in XP, but it was confusing to her.
Second, my quicken file worked on the VM through shared folders, hers didnt, yet it was in the same folder. There's no ACPI support on Parallels. So much for saving energy, so much for trying to keep the Mac Mini fan on low. There are still many odd glitches in Parallels that make me hold back.
This all makes me suspicious to waste $80 on a "ford" that will charge me again in 6 months for 3d support. Perhaps buying that Toyota from the get-go will be better, even if its more expensive (I'm guessing $100).
Oddly enough, the OSX 10.4.9 upgrade revived my thoroughly toasted Parallels install. Parallels wouldn't do anything, quit, force quit or allow the Mac to shut down with out doing a power off. So was it a OSX bug or a Parallels bug? VMware kept on working.
My Parallels Desktop is fine under 10.4.9. You want to inquire about your problem with their tech support and/or forums.
Of course my Fusion copy and VMs are fine too.
I would prefer a smaller set of very stable features. Coherence like functionality would be nice, but I think would negatively impact software stability. IMO, Parallels is misguided in enhancing GUI type functionality, rather than implement or improve basic functionality. For example, XP dos boxes running in a Parallels VM keep disappearing while executing some of my batch files. I do not see this type of failure in VMWare beta releases.
"My Parallels Desktop is fine under 10.4.9. You want to inquire about your problem with their tech support and/or forums"
Under 10.4.9 mine is fine as well. I still haven't gotten a good running MS-DOS or Win98 VM though. I can now use my Win2k, WinXP and Vesta VMs again.
The problem was in 10.4.8 with MS-DOS and Win98 VMs. So far tech support has been zero and the forums moderately useful. So far the only Virtual Machines that I've had good luck with on MS-DOS and Win98 has been MS Virtual PC and that is dog slow. Note the VMware betas seem like speed demons compared to VPC 2004 and seem even faster than VPC 2007 to me.
Do you have a key combo that works when fusion is full screen?
My Parallels Desktop is fine under 10.4.9. You want
to inquire about your problem with their tech support
Mine is too, but my main "issue" is that my macbook sounds like a 747 taking off after 5 minutes uning my Parallels CentOS VM, which I must say is a plain vanilla install which I use only to run a MySQL server for testing my zope apps, this is extremely annoying, especially at 11:30 pm while working in my room where my wife is already asleep (not for long)..
This CPU resource utilization (and the consequent fan noise) is the \*only* reason why I am sticking to fusion beta now and will probably end up buying the product once it is production released. The Macbook is a CD 2Ghz, 1.5Gb RAM.