[pnutcrushr]

Is there any conflicts or concerns using any of these programs with multiple users (family members) on the same Mac?

[griffman]

"When you used Ubuntu under VirtualBox, did you get a full screen?"

During the install, the screen is (I'm guessing) about 800x600. After installing, you need to add in the Guest Additions, in the Devices menu. It's a bit of a pain in Linux in VirtualBox; I have to run it via Terminal as root (copy the contents of the Additions disc image to a folder on your drive, then cd to that folder in Terminal, open a root shell (sudo -s), then run the x86 version of the Linux Additions .run file. After it installs and you reboot, you can resize the window via dragging, as you can with Windows.

But at no time (this is Ubuntu 8.10) on my Mac Pro or MacBook Pro was the window ever smaller than 800x600. If that's what you meant by post-card size, I think the problem is you need to install the guest additions.

-rob.

[griffman]

"Is there any conflicts or concerns using any of these programs with multiple users (family members) on the same Mac?"

What sort of conflict/concern are you thinking of? Multiple OS X users sharing one virtual machine? Multiple OS X users each installing their own virtual machines? One OS X user with a Windows VM supporting multiple users?

I'm not sure I fully understand the question...

-rob.

[huzzam]

@durbrow (& robg):

Installing the guest additions in Ubuntu is indeed necessary (for fullscreen, mouse integration, and sharing), but not as difficult as Rob's method.
# Open a root terminal (circle menu->system tools->root terminal); enter your password when it asks.
# Open the guest additions (VBox menu bar->devices->install guest additions)
# If it asks whether you wanna auto-run it, say "don't run"
# Double-click the cd icon on the desktop, and drag the file for your architecture (probably "VBoxLinuxAdditions-x86.run") into the terminal window.
# Switch to the terminal window & hit return.
hope that helps

[whitedog]

Rob, what you didn't mention is the relative level of difficulty upgrading Parallels and Fusion. The Fusion 2 upgrade went smoothly; Parallels 4 is a bear to upgrade from an earlier version (as reported by many others besides me). This may have to do with the changes necessary to up the processor capability of Parallels from the one CPU supported in earlier versions to 8 in version 4. For a clean install of Parallels this is not an issue (as was no doubt the case with your test machines); but many people are considering the upgrade and they should be alerted to expect difficulties. This is even more of a problem when you consider Parallels' record of lousy tech support - which I also have experienced firsthand. Once you get Parallels 4 running it works fine, but getting there can be problematic to say the least.

[whitedog]

{quote}I have to comment on the support I received from Parallels, which really was exemplary since they persevered with me whereas Fusion would just quit on me. The problem with Fusion is they go the additional revenue route when it comes down to support, which, had I known that before I bought, I would never have opted for Fusion in the first place.{quote}

VMWare may charge for support, but they didn't charge for the version 2 upgrade. Parallels, on the other hand, while their support - such as it is - is free, have charged for both the version 3 and 4 upgrades. So it's six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. My personal experience with their tech support was lousy, which is why I bought Fusion. And, as can be seen in other posts on this thread, I'm not the only one to move to VMWare because of Parallels' tech support failures. I've been using Parallels for over a year and their support does not seem to have improved in that time, sad to say. When you factor in the difficulty of upgrading to Parallels 4 from an earlier version, the weakness of their tech support is all the more daunting. It also suggests they have learned nothing from their customers' dissatisfaction. If they expect to survive, they'll have to upgrade their customer support as well as their software.

[griffman]

I did mention the issues with upgrading, as I experienced them myself. I didn't mention them in the "which app to choose" write-up, however, because they were covered in the actual Parallels review:

http://www.macworld....llels43540.html

I tested with both upgrade and clean installs, so I could see how things worked in both situations.

regards,
-rob.

[whitedog]

griffman said:

I did mention the issues with upgrading, as I experienced them myself. I didn't mention them in the "which app to choose" write-up, however, because they were covered in the actual Parallels review:

http://www.macworld....llels43540.html

I tested with both upgrade and clean installs, so I could see how things worked in both situations.

I read your comparison article before the individual reviews. Sorry. You did mention the upgrade problems with Parallels 4. My bad.

[mgholden]

Hi Robb,
Great review and thank you for taking the time to perform such an analysis.
I too have created a review of sorts and am pleased that most of your findings echoed mine, namely that Fusion 2.0x has significant offering for the virtual user.
One aspect that Mac users will find quite daunting and/or disturbing is seeing how fast Windows XP runs on a Mac! I am using the new MacBook Pro 2.8Ghz and a clean version of windows makes all the difference.
Check out http://matthewholden...your-macintosh/
Regards
Matthew Holden
Sydney Australia

[mgiorgi]

Thanks for the information about using Microsoft Office programs with the virtualization applications. I also need to use Quicken Home & Business (Windows only unfortunately) and have not found many comments about how this works in the VM world. Thanks

[griffman]

The reason you don't hear much about (name most any Windows app) in virtualization apps is that, generally speaking, they all just work. That's because, unlike older solutions like VirtualPC, virtualization isn't emulation. As far as the app knows, it's running on a genuine Windows machine. So 95% of everything out there runs just fine.

The exceptions, again generally speaking, are programs that interact directly with hardware (Dragon Naturally Speaking, though I've heard that it actually runs just fine), 3D applications (many games work fine, most 3D CAD apps run fine, et.c), and programs with esoteric hardware requirements (some expensive Windows apps may require a hardware dongle, which may or may not work).

But given that all three are free to try (and in one case, "buy"), it's relatively painless to try your own particular app out and see how/if it works. Chances are good, though, that it will work just fine.

-rob.