Talk:VMware Fusion

Criticisms/Parallels v Fusion section

I'd like to put together a fair criticisms section so that this article is encyclopedic and simply isn't a rehash of what is on VMware's website. Possibly a Fusion vs Parallels section, since they are the only two mainstream products in this genre. Obviously there is a ton of overlap, as they both have coherence/unity, snapshots, etc. But Fusion is superior in its ability for 64-bit OSes and SMP functions (appealing to professional users). However, parallels does offer boot camp and 3D on XP and Vista (possibly more mainstream features) and some other minor, though useful features like smartselect and its parallels explorer. I'd like help on putting together an informative and balanced section like this. At minimum though, a criticism I have is Boot Camp partitions and 3D only available on XP. What do you think? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but I think it should probably be more of a "Parallels vs. Fusion" section than a dedicated criticism section, as there are not any outstanding criticisms or problems in the community yet, such as the Wine controversy with Parallels. Aanhorn 11:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

Good job, just about what I was thinking, however as evidenced by my tag, I have a few issues/questions. I want to be sure that we're offering an accurate comparison, and so I'd like to get from the creator of the table some documentation to support two claims: 1) What power management functions does Fusion offer that Parallels doesn't? I thoroughly read VMware's site and cannot find anything that is much different from the suspend mode also offered on Parallels. 2) Do you have references or sources that clearly demarcate the difference between Parallels and Fusion's integrated window function? Parallels' recent beta supposedly increased/edited this capability. If no sources, could you explain the differences to me and how you know?

Missing features: The source provided from Mossberg clearly stated that he felt Parallels offered more features (though he doesn't mention what he felt were features it has versus Fusion). So, my question is, shouldn't that table reflect an obvious missing feature such as Parallels' "SmartSelect"? Or possibly Parallels' iPhone support? (though less important and only part of the recent beta).

I think at minimum the smartselect feature needs added as Fusion has no alternative. Further I would like some discussion and evidence regarding the two questions I have (with power management and the integrated window function). Lastly, the DX 9 info should be truncated from the table since neither support it, not even partially. There are rumors on the parallels board that version 3.5 may support it and add Vista Aero support, but that is not a verifiable source for Wikipedia, as forum posts are not considered sources. Cheers.

ALSO. I have a problem with the Mossberg comment. While what he said is likely true, aside from his personal opinion, there is no actual proof that Fusion is slimmer than Parallels. We need an actual review that tests the two and shows actual figures to make such a claim. As it stands now the comment needs a qualification after it, such as "However this observation is of personal opinion and not backed by actual evidence", or whatever. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue #1 - Fusion has an option to automatically suspend running VMs if your Mac's battery is low, Parallels has no such automation, or at least I can find no mention of it anywhere.

Issue #2 - The version of Coherence in the current stable version of Parallels is not comparable with Unity in Fusion, as it groups all windows in a single layer, does not support expose, as well as other problems, the newest beta of Parallels is a lot closer in functionality, but the chart should reflect the difference until the beta becomes a valid and supported product.

Addendum - I was mistaken, I thought Parallels supported a limited subset of DX9, but for lack of evidence, it should be stricken from the chart, I agree. I also agree that SmartSelect should also be added.

Aside from Mossberg's observation on Fusion's performance, there have been many non-verifiable claims from users that Fusion does indeed run better than Parallels. Fusion's own project manager, Pat Lee, has said in interviews that the technology behind Fusion an Parallels is different enough to allow Fusion to have much less overhead, so something should be included in the section to make this clear.

Also, Parallels VM RAM limit box should be marked red aka "no" as those who are using this chart will obviously be looking for good/bad, better/worse and it should be made visually clear which product has more flexibility.

In regards to the WP links for certain dates and phrases, I believe that it's not particularly constructive for the article to have indiscriminate WP linking everywhere, especially for entries that have nothing to do with VMs or VM products at all. The average WP article might follow this practice, but the focus of this article should be kept narrow, in my opinion. Besides, the release date is already linked in the main infobox and Development history section, no need to be superfluous. Aanhorn 9:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, although regarding the RAM; I think making it a “no” is not appropriate since it does have the feature, albeit much less capable than Fusion’s, therefore I think my change to “partial” would suffice to represent that the feature is present, but not as good as Fusion’s. This follows with what you said about a visual representation to the reader.

Further I qualified the OpenGL statement to include ‘3D acceleration’ as a generic term as it incorporates OpenGL an DX 8.1 on Parallels. Specifically important in a comparison section is the detail that Parallels does 3D on both XP and Vista.

Parallels v Fusion section as a separate article?

Why is the section included in the Fusion article and not in the Parallels Desktop article? Why isn’t the comparison a separate article? 83.93.214.171 15:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A separate article has been created - Comparison of VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop —Preceding unsigned comment added by PonsX (talk • contribs) 02:05, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Comment about Parallels and Fusion added on 15 Aug 07

I see another user already removed it, but just so that it's not re-added: Parallels supports more than just XP and Vista. It always has, however Linux support was quite poor until the recent 3.0 release. Regardless of that, the statement was not factual nor did it cite and reliable sources. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the said user who added this. Last time I checked, Parallels only allowed for XP and Vista. I am surpised that it always allowed, as it it not my experience. Maybe because I used a wizard. My very first computer crash is bloody factual, although I cannot cite someone else on this. Yep, sometimes Wikipedist does something by themselves, not just copying text over the Internet.

Anyway, that Parallels Desktop accept Windows 2000 is good news. I will download another trial and see if their adverstised 3D acceleration works (I'm pretty pessimistic on it, but still).

Congratulations for the very quick reaction.
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 16:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I'm not sure why Comparison of VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop is a separate article. It should be merged into this and/or the VMware Fusion articles as the comparison article alone is not very encyclopaedic on its own merits. There is already a comparison of VMs page. It (the Comparison of Desktop and Fusion article) seems almost like a culmination of product reviews. Comments sought at Talk:Comparison_of_VMware_Fusion_and_Parallels_Desktop#Merger Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Save beta info for fan sites

I boldly removed all the stuff about what was added in betas as it is out of context for an encyclopaedic article.

My removal was reverted with a request for discussion. Let's go! 59.167.58.242 (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the beta release info with the final releases. When you deleted the "beta" release notes, you also deleted the notes about releases 1.0 and 1.1. Those ARE encyclopedic and should stay in the article. Please be more careful when editing next time. Also, please wait about a week before concluding that there's "no discussion". — EagleOne\^Talk 16:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Leopard supported - as guest or host or both?

The articles states:

"Software features of Fusion include its ability to run 32-bit and 64-bit x86 "guest" operating systems [5], including support for Apple's current operating system, Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard"[4]"

This statement is either incorrect or very poorly worded. Case 1 is that is supports Leopard as a guest OS, Case 2 is that is means Fusion can run on Leopard (a host OS).

If the statment is intended to mean Case 1, a reference is needed. The reference link [4] to vmware's faq page only states "Does VMware Fusion run on Mac OS X Leopard? Yes, VMware Fusion 1.1 is fully supported on Mac OS X Leopard." It does not say Leopard can run as a guest OS. It should not be able to, as I believe there are number of technical and legal reasons why it can't and shouldn't.

If the statement is intended to mean that Leopard can be a host OS, this sentence is terribly worded. It strongly implies case 1. "features include....ablility to run 32b and 64b guest os, including support for leopard"

I have updated it to reflect leopard as a HOST. if case 1 is true, provide a reference

Mb2696 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

edit: please feel free to edit my re-wording to something that sounds better. Mb2696 (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reorganizing and editing the page

The original text was unorganized and in some cases could be better written. I categorized them and beefed up the section, adding additional features that I felt were left out in the original article. I also added information about VMWare Fusion 2.0, since the upcoming features are important and were not present in the original article; also it is release candidate status now, no longer a beta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.17.47 (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the problem section for this article is Features. It needs to be updated/rewritten, with all the v2.0 v3.0 features wrapped into it properly. Aanhorn

VM migration info please

To avoid vendor lock-in, it's always good to be able to take a virtual machine (VM) created or used in one environment and use it in another. I am able to take a VM with a .vmdk file suffix and use it interchangeably in both VMWare and Virtualbox in a Linux environment. Since Virtualbox also works in OS X, presumably one could exchange VMs across Linux and OS X using Virtualbox.

The Article about VMWare Fusion does not at all mention how easy or hard it is to take a VM created within VMWare Fusion and move it into any other virtualization environment, or vice versa. I think this type of information would be valuable to potential users of virtualization products. Rahul (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM (No tech support), and WP:NOHOWTO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 02:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Programming Languages in which Fusion is written in

I would seriously doubt that the Fusion GUI is written in C++. Personally, I'd bet very much on Objective-C/Cocoa. Also the quote does not refer specifically to Fusion, it's about virtualization software in general and the author might have Windows or Linux in mind.

NorthAce (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is there a message about secondary sources

I was wondering why is there a message about secondary sources, what kind of other sources than the official website can you find for these kinds of articles? --Chopin2712 (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)