[Macworld]

Post your comments for Choosing a virtualization application here

[sherod]

As of today Sun release VirtualBox 2.1 which includes improved performance under OSX.
Perhaps a retry with the latest version?

[espaan]

Nice review.
Did you guys ever try Crossover by codeweavers already (http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/)?
Not a complete virtualization as the others, but meant to run windows applications within MacOSX. I use it for example to test sites for compatibility with IE6.

[macwilf]

Anyone know about AutoCad? I hear that it needs BootCamp because of registration issues in Parallels etc., but I am not sure whether that is true. And what with new versions and VirtualBox being fairly new in the game...

[ibeetle]

Some of these say they intergrate with BootCamp. Is there a order of install.

Say I go get Parallels, Windows XP and the latest BootCamp drivers from Apple... now what? Should I install Parallels first or Windows under BootCamp? Or does it matter?
Will my TimeCapsule back up my Windows stuff? Or will it ignore it?
Please Do a Part II... The Install Guide.

[folklore]

@ibeetle: Install Boot Camp first, then point your virtualization software at it. Exactly how varies; check the documentation. Time Machine generally won't backup your Windows stuff unless you backup the entire VM. This will eat up ooodles of space on your backup volume in a hurry, since the entire VM will be copied with each backup. You can, however, install backup software in Windows that will copy files to a Time Capsule.
FWIW, my experience with Windows XP, Boot Camp and Parallels 3 told me that it was a baaaaad idea to mix virtualization and Boot Camp. I ended up with an unusable Windows partition and had to reinstall Windows. Since I didn't need Boot Camp much, I reinstalled to a VM.

[griffman]

Yea, isn't timing great? I've been working on these reviews and round-ups for literally months, and Sun upgrades VirtualBox about 12 hours before this goes live. Sigh.

I'm installing 2.1 today and will take a look at the changes it brings; based on what I find, we'll do some sort of update.

-rob.

[plazamac]

I purchased Parallels 4.0 several weeks ago, and so far have been GREATLY disappointed with their support. I had a question which I submitted. The next day I got an email from a tech saying they were escalating it to a Level 2 Tech. The question had to do with IP configuration ans Apache Server on Win XP, etc. so I guess they needed someone with more expertise. I waited 8 days even though they said 48 hour turnaround on a response. I then emailed the original tech who escalated it (as that was the only "real" email address I had). The next day I received an email from them telling me my support ticket was closed as the issue had been resolved. All with them NEVER have addresses my question at all. I have submitted the request again, but if I don't get a response in 24 hours I'll be ditching Parallel for Fusion.

[debohun]

The very reason I moved to Fusion from Parallels was due to terrible support that basically consisted of totally neglect, but on one occasion entailed outright rudeness. I've received only respect from VMWare, and Fusion is a good product.

[huzzam]

Great review, Rob! Thanks for finally giving in to my nagging to cover VirtualBox. ;)

[richcon]

I use VirtualBox for testing web pages in Internet Explorer, and for my simple needs it works great. And it's free. :) (You still have to pay for Windows, of course.)
My personal suggestion is that if you have the time (and you're not using it for gaming), download VirtualBox and try it out. Since it's free, you don't lose anything, and you can see if it works well enough for you.
The new VirtualBox advertises experimental OpenGL acceleration, but I have no idea how well it works. Maybe Rob can fill us in when he does his update? :)

[donjo]

you can't run a benchmark in a VM and expect consistent times. you are basically comparing three differently broken watches.

[diurnate]

One of the limitations with VMWare I've run up against is that it presents cores as distinct processors to a VM. So on my 8 core (4x2) Mac Pro, 4 cores becomes 4 seperate processors in a guest. Windows XP (and Vista?) is limited to two processors. Since I run multithreaded data analysis software, this is a problem as Windows under Fusion is essentially limited to two processors. I assume this is the reason you compared 4 processors under Parallels to only 2 under Fusion.
It sounds like Parallels does this differently, and presents the processors as cores of a single CPU? If so, its probably a crucial distinguishing point, as opposed to just supporting 8 versus 4 processors. Under Windows, it would essentially be 8 processors versus 2!
Clarification would be welcome, as I'd change to Parallels (or VirtualBox???) if it meant doubling my processing.
- Nate

[griffman]

Your understanding is correct; that's why I recommended Parallels for those who need to maximize the number of CPUs (cores) in the guest OS.

-rob.