I've been using VMware on Linux hosts since the "1.0" days. I am using Parallels because I didn't have a choice (VMware didn't respond quickly enough for me 
And I think Parallels is a great product. It may just be that most non-tech folks, the iLife folks per se, will benefit from a product like Parallels while people that already use VMware VMs may benefit from VMware.
I'm just thankful that we have two great products (soon to be) available for the Mac platform. And if EMC is listening, I hope they have a server-based VM Fusion product with snaphosts, etc. planned.
Now, how to get a bigger HDD in my Macbook Pro without screwing up the case!?
I'm just commenting on what appears to be a very unusual complaint -- 70,000 people raised their hands over the past six months saying they're interested in this product, and "only" half of them have actually downloaded a copy and run it. The conclusion is implicit in the title: why ask if it's got a chance if you don't see this as a really poor response rate? I personally think that's a TERRIFIC response rate, ESPECIALLY considering the beta was launched in the midst of the Christmas season!
You're welcome to take offense at my comment, although it's really directed at the VMWare employee who's indicating unhappiness with the response rate they've gotten over the Christmas holidays. Gee, do ya think maybe a few of those other 35,000 people might have been just a little busy since the beta announcement??? They might be able to pick a worse time for a launch, but I'd be hardpressed to come up with one. 
Another explanation is also quite simple: the Fusion beta started, more or less, in August, then closed after a short time. (I'd call that more of an "alpha" launch.) Since then, people like me who were looking to buy a Mac for the Holidays (remember them?) and run Windows on it had no option other than Parallels. I got an iMac and a copy of Parallels on Thanksgiving night. I didn't load up Parallels right away, however, hoping that just maybe VMWare might announce something.
I even attended a local VMWare User's Group meeting. A VMWare guy was there, but he couldn't tell me anything either. So I finally and reluctantly loaded up Parallels and installed my new copy of XP.
Two days later, the email for the Fusion Beta arrived. Great timing, folks. But, I still don't know when this thing will be launched. (My guess is it'll be announced at MacWorld in a week or so, along with OS X 10.5.)
So I suppose I'm playing around with the beta just because I'm curious. Parallels seems to work fine for my needs, although I really haven't had time to suck in all the stuff from my main desktop yet.
From what I can tell, the Fusion VM is limited to running with 128M of RAM, which makes it pretty worthless for much of anything. Windows XP can barely run in that much RAM. Linux isn't too bad, but ... they're definitely not looking to this beta for any kind of "stress testing", IMO.
-David
I am pretty sure that Srinivas's comment about the 50% response rate was intended to be a statement of pride and not at all a complaint. Everybody I talk to is certainly rather stoked about it. And, yes, when you open registration in August and start offering downloads just before the December holidays, and still get 50%... wow! Put it this way: if VMware were the Mary Kay cosmetics company, then hpreg would be driving a pink Cadillac right now.
The Infoworld article was titled that way because of the question it posed: whether Parallels, because it shipped salable product first, now effectively owns the market. It's a fair question to ask, certainly. Everyone on this forum may have noticed that VMware has not folded its tents and gone home.
Richard is quite correct that VMs can have more than 128 MB of RAM. In fact, although the present user interface tops out at 3.6 GB, persons with the moxie to edit .vmx files and also a Mac with a LOT of memory might find something suggestive to try in the Workstation 6 beta release notes.
P.S. Actually, hpreg would probably insist on a pink Peugeot. Son amour de patrie est impeccable.
>>The conclusion is implicit in the title: why ask if it's got a chance if you don't see this as a really poor response rate?
>This is a complaint for the Infoworld article author which is the where the tile of the thread comes from. Look at the top of the thread for the article link. I think 35,000+ downloads over the holidays is a great start. If you read my threads you'll see I'm an optimistic supporter of Fusion.
I read the article. It seemed to me that it was the guy from VMWare who wasn't too happy. But the way some writers spin things, you never know. Personally, I think the availability of VMWare on Macs will prove to be a Very Good Thing!
>VMware announced all-along that a public beta of Fusion would be released by the end of year. It just doesn't sound like that was convenient enough for you.
Yeah, and Santa Claus might show up some day, too. Sorry but I just don't place much stock in announcements like this. Besides, it's a beta, not a product launch. So convenience has nothing to do with it.
The only thing the guy at the VMWare UG said he could tell me was that it's in beta (which I already knew), that I should get on the list (a "waiting list"), and that when it's released it will only be sold in a Workstation configuration because Apple won't license it for use in Server configurations. Since he couldn't tell me more than "it's in beta", which is already public knowledge, I assume the other info is public knowledge as well. (He didn't even seem to realize that the "beta" was closed to new participants back in September or so.)
>You have a serious disconnect with Fusion's capabilities.
Probably. I looked over the info I could find, but it didn't seem all that informative. I thought it would be quickest to just install one of the 350 or so VMs that are already available, as I really don't feel like doing a full install myself.
I'm new to both VMWare and OS X. The materials I saw seem to be written for people who are already very familiar with VMWare, at least.
>You adjust the RAM for a VM in the settings, up to 3.6 GB (if you have that much). And you should read the release notes on the networking issues, they may help you get over your current blocks with the VMTN appliance.
Ahh, there's nothing like a handy dandy little popup that says, "this can only be adjusted when the machine is turned off." Hey, it's a VIRTUAL machine -- silly me for thinking that a virtual power switch makes a difference!
But thanks for the tip.
-David
VMware announced all-along that a public beta of
Fusion would be released by the end of year.
Sorry but I just don't place much stock in announcements like this.
Your skepticism in these matters is certainly justified. I think we are all pleased that, at least this year, Santa Claus did in fact show up.
The only thing the guy at the VMWare UG said he could
tell me was \[...]
that when it's released it will only be sold in a
Workstation configuration because Apple won't license
it for use in Server configurations.
Hmm, I fear that perhaps you and the VMware guy may have misunderstood one another. I Am Not A Lawyer, but I don't think VMware licensed anything from Apple, or vice versa. From Apple's perspective, Fusion is mostly just an app.
Perhaps the VMware person thought you were asking the very popular question of "When can I run Mac OS in a VM?" Now that does bear on licensing issues; Apple is very insistent that Mac OS must only run on Macs. But perhaps someday, if we all think good thoughts, you'll be able to run Mac OS in a VM on a Mac. A lot of people both in Palo Alto and in Cupertino would love to see that happen.
Or perhaps the VMware person thought you were asking the other very popular question of "When will ESX Server be supported on Mac Xserve hardware?" Nobody knows, but there's a whole bunch of issues for the MBAs and the device-driver authors to work on there too.
(He didn't even seem to
realize that the "beta" was closed to new
participants back in September or so.)
Well, strictly speaking, the beta wasn't closed in September. Rather, VMware ran a very, very small private beta with an earlier build of the product and a tiny, tiny subset of those 70,000 people. A lot of folks did not know about that earlier beta, although it generated a lot of good data that has contributed markedly to the success of the current public beta.
I looked over the info I could find, but
it didn't seem all that informative.
A fair criticism. Fusion's documentation is presently in its infancy, and its user interface is in, uh, maybe its adolescence? Yes, it'll be tough going for people new to VMware for a while. Fortunately, we have this forum, and we are very fortunate to have the participation of folks who have posted a lot of help for newer users.
Ahh, there's nothing like a handy dandy little popup
that says, "this can only be adjusted when the
machine is turned off." Hey, it's a VIRTUAL machine
-- silly me for thinking that a virtual power switch
makes a difference!
Again, a fair criticism. Today's supported guest OSes (Vista being a notable exception) don't support hot-add RAM, so the VMware virtual machine doesn't (presently) support hot-add RAM either. But it is reasonable for someone new to VMware to have not been aware of this fact.
What Parallels did was introduce a viable product six months
before the reigning market leader, at a much nicer price-point
than VMWare typically offers -- $79 (with a common $20 rebate)
vs. $295.
Note that pricing for Fusion has not yet been established--or at least not revealed. Hey, I get a VMware paycheck, and I have no idea what the pricing will be.
Thanks for your posting.