3.0.2 update not installing

[GeoffRob]

When I launch VMware Fusion on my MacBook Pro (Snow Leopard) a dialogue informing me that a new VMWare Fusion is available (I am running 3.0.1)

The new version is 3.0.2.

Clicking on 'Download and Install" downloaded the update, but did not seem to install it. When i eventually rebooted VMware, I get the same dialogue telling me 3.0.2 is available. Clicking Download & Install quickly reboots VMWare and presents me with the same dialogue.

How can I manually install this update?

Thanks,

Geoff

[WoodyZ]

You can download the full release from VMware however unless your going to run the latest release of Mac OS X 10.6 Server then don't waste your time as nothing new has been added or fixed according to the release notes other then allowing the latest release of Mac OS X 10.6 Server to be installed and actually adds additional known issues.

Way to go VMware! I'm off to buy Parallels 5 now!

[admin]

Without seeing vmware-vmfusion.log it's hard to say exactly why the update isn't working, but my guess is that you migrated your Fusion install from another Mac or upgraded from Leopard to Snow Leopard. Both of these cases leave Fusion in a state where it is (currently, it's been fixed internally) unable to update itself. The solution is to use the standalone installer, which will also fix the broken state.

[icurtain]

It works for me on Snow Leopard, I was prompted to download, clicked to proceed and it then downloaded fonts, core and os tools: Windows and Solaris.

as it was downloading I closed the virtual image (suspended) i had open.

Then OSX prompted for password to change the app, then it restarted by itself and is running 3.0.2.

Maybe try a system reboot and then install again?

[mkummer]

The whole update process to 3.0.2 ran absolutely flawless: I had the virtual HD open and started the process after seeing the dialog box w/o doing anything else. The updater d/l and installed itself automatically. It closed the open HD and launched it after some time again. No hassle so far - worked as it should. BTW is it necessary to reinstall the VM tools after that small update? The automatic install did not appear, so I left it as it is for now.

regards, Michael

[Kenneth868]

After realizing the only improvement is "Fixes a problem so that the latest release of Mac OS X 10.6 Server (Snow Leopard) can run in a virtual machine." the excitement all vanish.

Hope next time they will fix the performance issue.

[vdanen]

This really is ridiculous. I think there are less people using SL server in vmware than people running Windows 7, and the performance on Win7 is horrid. I've been using VMware in various flavours for since Workstation 2 and this has got to be the #1 most disappointing release I've ever had the misfortune of paying for. =(

Seriously... the poor performance in windows vm's needs to be addressed. With my Fedora/RHEL/CentOS vm's I'm not seeing such poor performance but on windows it's awful. I just read this:

http://www.mactech.com/articles/special/1002-VirtualizationHeadToHead/index-007.html

Parallels 5 is overall 43% faster with a Win7 guest? Are you kidding me?

Makes me wonder how viable it is to keep using Fusion for the linux guests and switch to Parallels for the windows guests. To keep us waiting this long for a fix is unacceptable, and I'm swiftly losing patience.

[admin]

After realizing the only improvement is "Fixes a problem so that the latest release of Mac OS X 10.6 Server (Snow Leopard) can run in a virtual machine." the excitement all vanish.

Hope next time they will fix the performance issue.

There was a lot of discussion internally about this update over whether we could sneak in additional fixes or whether we needed to release this at all. In the end management made the call that we did need to put this patch out and that absolutely no other changes could go in (to minimize QA time), no matter how trivial and helpful. We are acutely aware of the performance issues, but this was not the release vehicle to address them in.

[Kenneth868]

It reminds me ....

<a href="http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-06-29/" title="Dilbert.com">!http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/50000/9000/500/59568/59568.strip.gif|alt=Dilbert.com|src=http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/50000/9000/500/59568/59568.strip.gif|border=0!</a>

[dp_fusion]

I'm one of the people using SL Server and I appreciate the support. Parallels is fine if you accept they emphasize integration between OS X and Windows - I don't. In fact quite the opposite. They seem intent on making OS X a secondary OS to Windows on the Mac platform. I do wonder, though what crazy things they do to achieve that integration. I quit using it years ago when I unconvered some glaring secruity issues.

[WoodyZ]

I'm one of the people using SL Server and I appreciate the support.

I certainly do not have any hard numbers to show how many users use Fusion to virtualize OS X Server however if using the number of issues involving other OSes vs OS X Server in this forum then you really don't have to do the math as it's blatantly obvious that the OS X Server userbase is negligible in numbers when compared to other OSes especially Windows. Even so it's understandable, due to the nature of the issue, why VMware took the action they did however considering recent comments/discussions made by the technical lead of the Fusion team "We as a company have neglected the performance of hosted products (not just Fusion, but also Workstation on Linux/Windows) for too long, in favor of a strong performance effort focused on our server product (VMware ESXi). This wake-up article from macworld has definitely sparked some internal discussions at VMware. I expect good things to come out of these discussions..." it leaves a bad feeling when the very next maintenance release only address one specific issue and it's understandable that this will only serve to further frustrate and alienate Fusion users.

Parallels is fine if you accept they emphasize integration between OS X and Windows - I don't. In fact quite the opposite. They seem intent on making OS X a secondary OS to Windows on the Mac platform. I do wonder, though what crazy things they do to achieve that integration. I quit using it years ago when I unconvered some glaring secruity issues.

As to Parallels integration with OS X I first used Parallels 2 and IIRC there was no way to adjust the integration/security level between the Host/Guest or if there was it was not aggregated to the degree that is is today and in Parallels 4, which I currently use as I've not had time to upgrade to 5 yet but have now purchased it since its become obvious that VMware doesn't really give a damn about it non Enterprise products and users. Anyway I got away from the point I was trying to make and that is one can adjust the level of integration/security in an aggregated manner in Parallels so your argument in the area is null and void.

[bytekeeper]

True, true, true! Thats so damn true WoodyZ! I've been trying hard to remember my dusty login details for this forum to add my angry 5c on the recent fusion update 3.0.2 while i came across this thread. After tons of complains on this forum and elsewhere, and also some not-so-nice reviews and comparisons lately on the net the only single issue fixed in 3.0.2 is a problem touching 0.1% fusion users! Well I may be wrong here, let it be 1%...

Hands down, really And now since "vmware policy is not to comment on bla-bla-bla" the customers are yet agin left in the dark for who knows how long.

Get enough popcorn guys since there likely be a long wait till 3.0.X fixing really important issues if ever ...

[amgems]

I have had this issue for some time now.

For 3.0.1, same issue, and before I realised it was offering me 3.0.1 over and over, I did download 3.0.1 and reinstall manually, as whenever I accept the 'Download and Install' option. VMWare restarts.

Today, I carefully checked that there was a new version, but same issue. Finding the download is a PITA. Downloaded, and reinstalled, and kicked off Fusion, and again, the same insanity.

I am running SnowLep. I did upgrade at some point to Fusion 3.

I have also noticed that most of my virtual machines, despite taking over 100GB of disc space, do not show up, but that is another issue.

[dp_fusion]

My point is not null and void - I said I quit using it years ago and why. They violated my trust and I did not give them the opportunity to gain it back. Had I not said "years ago" it would be null and void. But - did you know that at that time, and can you say this is not still true, that the access to OS X from the Windows guest was enableable from Windows regardless of what you did on the OS X side? I don't write viruses for a living or even as a hobby, but if this is backdoor access still true it would be a trivial thing to gain access to the host system. Don't know if it is, but it's worth looking in to since you're a customer.

[WoodyZ]

The very fact that you stopped using it years ago and how it has changed over the years is exactly what makes it null an void! The Virtual Machine can be sand-boxed tightly under both products however what you may not realize is there are back door's in both products anyway and if security is what your looking for then you shouldn't be running any programs that have the potential to put your system at risk and both Fusion and Parallels have that potential depending on how you have things configured both in the Host and Guest.

[d_vaught]

After starting 3.0.1 I was notified that the new version was available, so I went through the whole shutdown/power off procedure, then updated. Now my VM won't boot and I get this error, "You have started VMware Fusion with an out-of-date copy of the application" and it says I should start the VM from the default location, whatever that means. The version no. is still at 3.0.1.

Am downloading the 3.0.2 version from the VMWare site, and will post back the results.

[daemonchild]

After realizing the only improvement is "Fixes a problem so that the latest release of Mac OS X 10.6 Server (Snow Leopard) can run in a virtual machine." the excitement all vanish.

Hope next time they will fix the performance issue.

</div>There was a lot of discussion internally about this update over whether we could sneak in additional fixes or whether we needed to release this at all. In the end management made the call that we did need to put this patch out and that absolutely no other changes could go in (to minimize QA time), no matter how trivial and helpful. We are acutely aware of the performance issues, but this was not the release vehicle to address them in.

</div>

The excitement is there for some of us! Snow Leopard server is a rather useful addition to me anyway, so cheers VMware. :smileygrin:

---

VCP, VCI, MBCS CITP

- VMware Geekiness

[admin]

After starting 3.0.1 I was notified that the new version was available, so I went through the whole shutdown/power off procedure, then updated. Now my VM won't boot and I get this error, "You have started VMware Fusion with an out-of-date copy of the application" and it says I should start the VM from the default location, whatever that means. The version no. is still at 3.0.1.

Run /Applications/VMware Fusion.app. You're trying to run an out-of-date copy located somewhere else.

[matthewls]

3.02 installed perfectly and runs fine. I have not been able to convince myself to switch to parallels after all. The "out of the box" speed didn't last. Resuming from suspend slowed down, and the time saved in running was less than the time required to refine the setup to my liking, which I finished months ago in Fusion 3. So I'm sticking with VMware and looking forward to 3.03 or 3.1....

[GeoffRob]

I started this post and thought no one had replied as I had no notifications. I am on a lot of forums, but on this forum I saw no option for subscribing to an email notification of posts.

There has been some talk of "OS X 10.6 Server". Is that the same as the regular brand Snow Leopard OS, or is it a specialised "server" version?

I use a Mac with Snow Leopard. VMWare provides a shell for my Windows XP. In this environment, is the 3.0.2 update unnecessary? (It won't install anyway). Just looking for clarification. (I dare not do a reinstall).

Thanks,

Geoff