[diurnate]

If you update the article, probably worth explicitly clarifying that under Windows VMWare supports 2 processors and Parallels up to 8. VMware makes it sound like you'll get 4 processor support - which doesn't perform that different from 8 processors for most purposes - but a bit disingenous and surprising for end users.

Thanks for a useful pickup - its these details that makes reviews invaluable!

- Nate

[chuckbo]

Thanks for the analysis. I hadn't heard of VirtualBox, so I'm sure I'll check it out when I get my new laptop next quarter.
One thing I didn't see in the article is how easily each is to install and how well it shares files with the Mac environment when both are running. My main purpose will be using it to develop MS Access databases, and I like being able to create graphics on the Mac and then access them from a shared directory in Access to load them into my templates.
And that takes me to a followup comment about using Time Machine to back up your windows work. If you want TM to do the backups, is there any disadvantage in putting the documents you're creating in a shared directory that the Mac sees, so it backs up that directory? That's what I've done with Virtual PC and my backup software.
Chuck

[griffman]

All three make sharing files relatively easy. Parallels and Fusion let you drag and drop them back and forth, VirtualBox does not. Parallels and Fusion can automatically mirror certain folders; in VirtualBox, you have to set up shares (not sure if that's still true in 2.1 or not; haven't started testing).

As for Time Machine -- yes, if you want TM to back up your files, save them in a shared folder that the Mac can see.

-rob.

[Ilgaz]

It is plain amazing that Microsoft, spent millions to takeover the company making Virtual PC, went up to 7.x on Mac, did everything UI wise down to drag/drop, shared drives and complete access to Windows source code is non existent on OS X virtualisation.
Imagine how Virtual PC OS X would work without emulating Intel (CISC,little endian) on PPC (RISC, big endian), a horribly hard task.
Rob Griffiths, can you explain what kind of insane reasoning is behind it? I really think it deserves an article along with Windows Media Player which got butchered.
It kinda sounds like the big 3 car companies racing each other to make the ultimate V8 while entire planet tries to save gas.
You can understand IBM which has a consumer level phobia for not shipping a virtual thing for end user but I can't understand how come one solved all issues doesn't make Virtual PC for Intel OS X having access to entire Windows source.

[folklore]

Ilgaz said:

>

Quote

You can understand IBM which has a consumer level phobia for not shipping a virtual thing for end user but I can't understand how come one solved all issues doesn't make Virtual PC for Intel OS X having access to entire Windows source.

It has much more to do with hardware than software. The entire Virtual PC codebase would have to be scrapped since it was based on emulating x86 CPUs on a PPC platform. Virtualization on current Intel chips is supported by the hardware, making it an entirely different kettle of fish than Virtual PC was. Put differently, their experience with VPC was not helpful to Microsoft - they would have had to start from scratch.

Discontinuing VPC was probably a business decision on Microsoft's part. They knew that other, more nimble companies could deliver better virtualization software faster than they could. VMWare had been doing it for years already, so they had a built-in competence that Microsoft didn't possess. Besides, Microsoft already derives revenue from each virtual machine that runs Windows anyway through Windows licenses (and probably Office, too).

[buehler]

I am looking to possibly use one of these apps to run a presentations program on an external video projector. There are of course Mac versions to do the same, but the software has already been purchased for Windows and there will be other programs from Windows required to be run on the system.
We have a 2.0Ghz Core Duo MacBook w/2GB of RAM to run the virtualization software on. A lot of video and graphics would be processed on the external projector from the laptop. Obviously this is not ideal since the MacBook uses integrated graphics. But this is what we have to work with. Of the choices listed here, what would be my best option for this use?

[technolawyer]

I disagree with the XP bias in this article. I can't speak for entertainment applications, but I use Fusion on a 2008 Mac Pro to run Vista Business, QuickBooks 2008, and Office 2007. It works like a charm. I guess your mileage may vary, but my understanding of and experience with Vista is that it's rock solid if you use applications designed to run on Vista. As I mentioned, I use Vista Business. The Ultimate version seemed way too bloated for business use.

[griffman]

I never said that Vista was unstable -- it's not. I said that my findings are that Vista (and I tested with Business) is anywhere from 5% to 20% slower for the same machine, same virtualization app when compared to XP Pro. I could definitely sense the difference in speed when trying to do various things, but that doesn't make Vista unusable -- I even commented in a couple of reviews that it was quite usable.

-rob.

[griffman]

"I am looking to possibly use one of these apps to run a presentations program on an external video projector. "

That's a tough question, and something I've got no experience with. I'd probably think any of the three could handle the job, as I assume you're not talking about an app that does real-time 3D graphics via the projector? If I were in your shoes, I'd try VirtualBox first (because it's free), and if that didn't work, then Fusion and Parallels to see which handled it best.

-rob.

[folklore]

buehler said:

I am looking to possibly use one of these apps to run a presentations program on an external video projector.

It sounds like you've got a specific enough situation that you'd want to actually try all three to see which works best for the custom apps you have. It would suck to have to install Windows three times, but it's probably the only way to know for sure.

Of course, you could always use Boot Camp instead and have the full speed of the hardware available.

[DPG4450Guy]

Rob - do you get audio with Sun's VB using XP as a guest?

If so - what settings are you using - trying to get it to put out sound on an iMac 24".

[griffman]

You have to enable audio in the VM setup, in the Audio section. Check the box to enable audio, then set the audio driver to CoreAudio, and leave the Controller set to ICH AC97.

-rob.

[FollowThisCar]

Nice article. However, it doesn't tell me which app is the best for network connections.
I'm still testing both Fusion and Parallels and I can't make up my mind.
I can see that Parallels establishes 2 extra network connections (with several active IP addresses) that remain open in the Network Control Panel, also after Parallels has been shut down. This makes it more complicated if you want to run an SSH secure connection from Windows within the Mac => how secure is it really??
On the other hand, I don't know what Fusion does: the networking stuff is all hidden, which makes it even worse and harder to monitor.
Any ideas, advice, tips on this matter??

[griffman]

Delving into the complexities of networking -- when you consider bridged vs. shared, Ethernet, AirPort, static vs. dynamic IP, ssh, etc. was really beyond the scope of the article. Networking in VMs could probably encompass an article of its own.

All three VM apps seemed to work fine with basic networking stuff -- NAT, bridged, and host-only seemed to work in my testing. However, my testing was pretty basic; for more advanced needs, I'd suggest trying each yourself. I prefer Fusion's "keep it hidden" approach to Parallels' adding more network interfaces in the Network System Preferences panel, but others may not share that preference.

-rob.