Coherence in Fusion?

SillyRegistrati · ‎12-22-2006

Hi,

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?

Thanks.

rcardona2k · ‎12-22-2006

You can do this today with SeamlessRDP, http://www.cendio.com/seamlessrdp. And better yet it works in both Linux and Windows. For anyone that's used seamless windows in Citrix will generally agree this is a better solution than a layering hack.

SillyRegistrati · ‎12-23-2006

Thank you for your answer.

I have questions though.

Windows XP is limited to ONE RDP session, and I understand that the Cedio SeamlessRDP component opens like one session per application (so far the documentation says you start an application running : rdesktop -A -s "c:\seamlessrdp\seamlessrdpshell.exe notepad". And switching from Windows XP to Windows server 2003 with the Terminal Services mode enabled and like 10 concurrent licenses to support Cedio's solution is no option for the one-person company I am...

I am using daily like 3 to 10 Windows applications at the same time, and unless you prove me wrong and provide a detailed working guide, Cedio SeamlessRDP is not gonna make it.

Not that I did not try it myself, but as I could not find a pre-compiled binary of a recent version of RDesktop for OSX, I can't test that part. I tried with TSclientX with no success.

So you can state Parallels solution is a "layering hack", but it works with Windows XP, no question asked, no compiling required, no X11 and no 1500$+ Windows Server.

Anyone who can prove me wrong and come with a detailed configuration guide for the average user AND have multiple applications opened at the SAME time on a Windows XP Pro VM, be my guest. Remember, in Parallels you just do ONE click to activate the Seamless mode; consider "simple" a solution that requires installing existing application - no compiling, no terminal commands)

In the meantime, anyone interested in a "Seamless" application experience of Windows application in Fusion (a la Coherence)?

rcardona2k · ‎12-23-2006

The blog site with relatively simple instructions which I had bookmarked was unavailable the last time I checked that's why I didn't post that link. It was featured on digg recently so maybe they decided to take it down due to the effect.

Also RDP isn't the only solution I mentioned, Citrix can do seamless apps with Presentation Server, but you already mentioned you are cost-adverse. And Citrix can definitely handle more than one app.

FWIW, you're right Coherence does just work out of the box in Parallels for XP (not Vista, not anything else) so I understand you just want parity, particularly ease-of-use parity.

SillyRegistrati · ‎12-24-2006

For me Coherence is not the magic \*does it all* but it allow to have a Windows workstation (not server) and use it in a non-intrusive way under Mac OS.

When I manage servers, I do RDP to them and live with it. If I work with test servers (VMs under Fusion or Parallels), I live also with the VM window and it's fine.

But using Outlook, Access, Visio and a couple of other Corporate must have as window under OSX instead of having to switch to a full screen session, or having a WinXP VM window all day long on my desktop is not my prefered solution. Shall I conclude I am the only one to like Coherence in Parallels and no other Fusion user misses it?

Thanks.

DanM · ‎12-24-2006

WHATEVER.EXE

It sure is a good time to be both a long-time VCP and Mac user. Fusion is looking to be a very promising offering.

Cheers,

Daniel Milisic

PS: If an XP box isn't on a domain and you want multiple concurrent RDP sessions, it is possible to achieve this by hacking in a different termsrv.dll. MS enabled multiple concurrent logins to XP in nearly all the SP2 betas, then pulled the feature at the last minute when SP2 was released. There's an patch+installer available at kood.org that makes it light work.

Fritos · ‎12-24-2006

I fully agree with you on the benefits of Coherence, and was eager to download the beta of Fusion to see if they had a better implementation. The fact that the feature is not there is a bit disappointing. This will be the deciding factor for me when I chose to purchase one product. On the lighter side, Coherence does not work well with games, even old ones...

I sure hope that Fusion will integrate in the new future a feature similar to Coherence.

coopermj · ‎12-24-2006

Fusion is a great product -- I've been looking forward to it for a very long time, but Parallels' Coherence feature is extremely nice. Sure, it's a gimmick, but it makes the difference b/t feeling as if you're running two separate computers and running some Windows apps on your Mac.

Many in this forum, of course, would find running more computers preferable, but my users would feel better if they just thought I was giving them Outlook and Word 2007 using "magic." In economic terms, this moves virtualization even farther from Power User to Every User.

Personally, I'll be buying a copy of Fusion for myself and my staff as soon as it comes out. We own Workstation and ESX and the ability to slide images back and forth along with just feeling more solid makes it better for support workers.

HPReg · ‎12-24-2006

I fully agree with you on the benefits of Coherence,

We like the idea of Parallels Coherence, but not their implementation (essentially just make the guest desktop transparent) which prevents inserting let's say a Windows window in between two Mac OS windows.

One of the reason we have never implemented something like Coherence so far in VMware products (although an engineer at VMware came up with the idea 5 years ago) is that it actually confuses non-technical users \_a lot_: "Why do I see different files when I click File > Open in this application (a Windows app) and in that application (a Mac OS app)?", "Why does DnD sometimes open the same document and sometimes make a copy of it?".

To implement it right takes time...

and was eager to download the beta of Fusion to see if they had a better implementation.
The fact that the feature is not there is a bit disappointing.

I find you a bit severe. Parallels publicly disclosed Coherence for the first time a week ago! At that time, engineers at VMware had already handed the beta Fusion build to QA at VMware!

SillyRegistrati · ‎12-24-2006

I would agree with you for Windows / Unix hosts. But this is OS X, and you can't be confused by:

Why do I see different files when I click File > Open in this application (a Windows app) and in that application (a Mac OS app)?"

It is clear when you are using a Windows app or a Unix app and not an OSX app. Or maybe I presume too much of the average capabilities of OS X users...

I just hope you will come with a solution, albeit a beta-within-the-beta and a bit rough. I don't like 100% of Parallels' implementation, but 95% of the time, it pleases me (and for the 5% remaining, I will wait for their v3.0 retail to complain

josephabennett · ‎12-25-2006

We like the idea of Parallels Coherence, but not
their implementation (essentially just make the guest
desktop transparent) which prevents inserting let's
say a Windows window in between two Mac OS windows.
One of the reason we have never implemented something
like Coherence so far in VMware products (although an
engineer at VMware came up with the idea 5 years ago)
is that it actually confuses non-technical users _a
lot

It sounds a little arrogant to me to talk about how crummy the implementation of Parallels coherence mode is, and how difficult it might be for a user to figure out the difference between a Windows app (and file locations) and an OS X app.

You don't know what people will really want to do with this mode, and how they will learn to use it. Rather than try map it all out, implement something basic and have it grow. The first beta of parallels coherence mode was pretty basic, but the latest puts apps in the dock, allows you to completely remove the start menu and task bar, option-tabs between those apps, and is getting pretty close to removing all the windows crap that I don't want to see.

VMware, you have an inherently more stable implementation of a VM, but you completely missed the boat on virtualization on OSX, are still late, and are less feature rich. Everybody I know who uses a VM with a Mac already associates the concept of VMs with Parallels. If you want to never get into this market, by all means continue to bad mouth the competition, keep the price high, and tell us what the user experience must be to be effective.

Alnitak · ‎12-25-2006

We like the idea of Parallels Coherence, but not
their implementation (essentially just make the guest
desktop transparent) which prevents inserting let's
say a Windows window in between two Mac OS windows.
One of the reason we have never implemented something
like Coherence so far in VMware products (although an
engineer at VMware came up with the idea 5 years ago)
is that it actually confuses non-technical users _a
lot_: "Why do I see different files when I click File

Open in this application (a Windows app) and in

that application (a Mac OS app)?", "Why does DnD
sometimes open the same document and sometimes make a
copy of it?".
To implement it right takes time...

Boy, this sounds like a classic developer response to a feature request. Don't assume what your users can or cannot handle. The fact is that thousands of very novice VM users~~let's face it, a large percentage of Mac Parallels users have never used a VM before Parallels~~have adapted to it very nicely, and like it a lot.

I am with the one other poster on this forum who said something to the effect that 95% of the time I am fine with how they have implemented it. It's very nice to seamlessly open apps that I need from the Windows world in my Mac OS. That is how it will be used by most people--regardless of platform.

I think if you thought of this five years ago, it's a shame you haven't come to market with something like it before now. That is a long time to "get it right" in the software world. The upstarts over at Parallels are making you look slow; don't get arrogant about, get aggressive and show them the power and experience that you guys over at VMWare have. You have been at this many more years than the small Parallels team, and now them EMC owns you, cash is surely not a barrier...

Count me in the crowd that would strongly like to see that added to Fusion in some format--ideally better than what Parallels is doing.

Jeff

HPReg · ‎12-25-2006

It sounds a little arrogant to me
...
If you want to never get into this market, by all means continue to bad mouth the
competition,

When we don't talk about our competition, people tell us we are arrogant.

When we talk about our competition, people tell us we bad mouth them.

I wonder, then, what I'm supposed to do.

Remember that this is a \_discussion_ forum. I tell you how I feel, you tell me how you feel. And we all try to make the product better.

keep the price high

The price of other VMware products is determined by market forces. It is not high or low, it is what people are ready to pay for what they get. Personally, I find that a free VMware Player is a pretty good value for the cost.

As far as Fusion is concerned, pricing has not been publicly announced yet. So let's not speculate.

>, and tell us what the user experience must be to be

effective.

All users are different. You are an early adopter, but all users are not as computer-savvy as you are, yet they want to reap the benefit of virtualization.

I'm not dismissing Parallels Coherence. I'm just telling you why we haven't implemented it so far. You think we are wrong. You might be right.

josephabennett · ‎12-25-2006

Remember that this is a \_discussion_ forum. I tell
you how I feel, you tell me how you feel. And we all
try to make the product better.

keep the price high

The price of other VMware products is determined by
market forces. It is not high or low, it is what
people are ready to pay for what they get.
Personally, I find that a free VMware Player is a
pretty good value for the cost.
As far as Fusion is concerned, pricing has not been
publicly announced yet. So let's not speculate.

that's fair. But Parallels for Mac/Linux is $50, and VMware Workstation, which I think is the closest thing, is $189. Maybe the Win version is junk from them. I just hope you are priced competitively. I would be very concerned to have this app tied into the rest of your infrastructure too closely. I just want to access a few Windows things without being on a PC. I don't need remote management, enterprise this and that, etc. Keep this consumer oriented.

>, and tell us what the user experience must be to
be

effective.

All users are different. You are an early adopter,
but all users are not as computer-savvy as you are,
yet they want to reap the benefit of virtualization.
I'm not dismissing Parallels Coherence. I'm just
telling you why we haven't implemented it so far. You
think we are wrong. You might be right.

I'm fine with coherence being a power-user thing. That is my point about not dictating what the user experience should be. But as a power user, let me say this... if I really wanted a Windows experience on my Mac, I would use Boot Camp... I wouldn't virtualize. I want a VM because there are a couple of things I can't do on a Mac. I need those Windows apps. I don't want the whole crappy Windows environment, with task bars, tray icons, and the start menu, just to use those apps.

I think you will find that many users are like that - they would switch to a Mac in a second if they could just get access to those one or two apps they need. Check out the Parallels forums... they are busting at the seams about Coherence Mode.

You guys have a better overall product. I'm running two VMs right now. The Parallels VM is at 22% CPU utilization and 460 MB of memory... doing nothing. For the same configuration, you are at .1% and 22 MB of memory. If you would just implement a coherence mode, I would be happy to pay a little bit more. My battery on my Macbook Pro would last longer and I would be able to efficently do non-PC app work. Pretty please with sugar on top?

trowbrds · ‎12-25-2006

Another reason why we haven't implemented it is that we still have limited manpower. It was decided that "doing it right" would require a fair amount of work, and other things were higher priority. I think it's safe to say that there are hundreds, maybe thousands of cool features like coherence that engineers would love to get into products, but don't have the time.

Are you a hot-shot Mac programmer? We're hiring

coopermj · ‎12-26-2006

It's perfectly understandable to prioritize customer desires and development time, so we're trying to push perceptions of customers' desires.

I should also point out that Mac users, more than Windows or Linux users, tend to value appearance and elegance. A big XP in-a-box seems less elegant. I see the point about a different pathing structure (although creative use of shared folders and remapping My Documents to the Documents folder and perhaps Desktop to the Mac Desktop would eliminate a great deal of that). But, I know users would overcome that far faster than they would the idea of this floating Windows window. Being able to support specific apps in floating windows would go far in not needing to train Mac users to "use Windows" and break down barriers.

I should admit we do not deploy apps on Workstation currently, but if we could get the licensing worked right, I would like to deploy some key apps virtualized to all our Mac users as applications, not alternate realities.

Besides, Fusion seems to have the charter of being a different product from the rest of the portfolio. I think this would count. Seriously, though, I would rank Coherence over Spotlight integration.

barnys · ‎12-26-2006

I agree with you! mixing coherence with the best of Fusion will make the ideal package for me and the nearly 200 PCs where we are running a mix of Parallels and Vmware at my small business and at work. I find coherence to be a sweet sweet feature, non-intrusive and it works out of the box. So far however and the GREAT thing that Fusion is already making possible is the use of isynchronous devices (i.e. plantronics bluetooth usb headset, logitech webcams, etc.), which simply don't work in Parallels.

PLEASE VMWARE TEAM... include coherence like functionality and I will ditch Parallels forever!

Thanks,

barnys · ‎12-26-2006

"Why do I see different files when I click File > Open in this application (a Windows app) and in that application (a Mac OS app)?", "Why does DnD sometimes open the same document and sometimes make a copy of it?".

... the functionality should be there, and users should have the option of using-it or not with a single click, or key-combination. How much more basic can it get than this for the non-technical users?...

It is unfortunate that vmware thought of it so many years ago, but that Parallels executed it first...

coopermj · ‎12-31-2006

TSClientX and SeamlessRDP are cool -- TSClientX was easier than grabbing rdesktop via macports and setting things up via the command line (which I also did to try it both ways). I'm using TSClientX/SeamlessRDP right now, in fact. Thanks for putting all that together!

Then I killed the frontend to Fusion so it's nice and headless.

BUT, it's no conherence. Performance seems degraded (outtyping the interface) and, well, X sucks.

nautiazn85 · ‎01-02-2007

Am I the only one who thinks the idea of Coherence is stupid?

Sorry... thought somebody had to state it.

If I am emulating Windows and Windows apps... I'll stick with the Windows UI.

If you guys want Coherence so badly... support the Darwine project or something. But I would personally want companies to release native mac software... rather than rely on a buggy Coherence type of thing. I don't really care what people say... but coding something like Coherence... and making it integrate with OS X perfectly (i.e. menu systems, etc. etc.)... 100% of the time... is nearly impossible.

Now the ability to boot from ext2/ext3/fat32(bootcamp) would be useful. You don't necessarily need to add NTFS support... since in my experience NTFS write support is unstable... and I don't feel like losing all of my important information.

Actually... I'm curious how stable Parallels Beta 3's bootcamp support for NTFS really is. When push comes to shove... I have a feeling somebody is going to be upset when they lose all of their data.