Parallels or Fusion???
gatrball
running on a PC for work, however, I hate having to switch computers.
Obviously, these programs come to mind. Which to buy? And, Why? Thanks!
sbt
<eabfca11-3035-4deb...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
gatrball <gord...@gmail.com> wrote:
You might also want to look at a free alternative: Sun's VirtualBox. My
virtualization needs for Windows apps are (fortunately for my sanity)
rare, and VirtualBox meets my needs.
Since the price is right, you might check to see whether it suffices
for you as well before you invest in one of the other alternatives.
--
Spenser
Leonidas Jones
running.
Lee
dorayme
sbt <dogb...@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:
What are the Mac machine and/or OS requirements in short, please?
--
dorayme
BreadW...@fractious.net
I've been using Parallels since v.3 (it's now up to v.5) and
am considering switching to Fusion.
It's worked okay - but I've had problems printing, and
the upgrade from v.3 to v.4 was a big pain.
I don't really have a major complaint (well, the printing
thing is a huge problem right this second), but I'm not
crazy about it, and having looked into getting some tech
support today, I'm definitely looking into alternatives.
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
M-M
Leonidas Jones <leonid...@netscape.net> wrote:
Can you use a Boot Camp partition with VirtualBox?
--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com
Leonidas Jones
I've never used Boot Camp, so I don't know. Virtualbox stores its
virtaul hd in a .vdi file on the mac hard drive. I don't think it can be
set to look at the windows partition for your boot camp installation.
Lee
Bream Rockmetteller
Just installed Parallels 5 and Win 7. Coherence mode with the
Mac-whatever setting is great. All I need is Frame Maker on the Mac,
and now I've got it. I know nothing of Fusion, but they'll one-up each
other 'til the cows come home. Maybe try VirtualBox?
--
Bream Rockmetteller
Donaldson's Dog Joy
509-450-0301
Jamie Kahn Genet
I prefer Fusion, but that's cause I find it best for games. You'd
probably get by fine with the free Virtual Box
<http://www.virtualbox.org/> unless you need to run Direct X or OpenGL
apps.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Warren Oates
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> What are the Mac machine and/or OS requirements in short, please?
'cause I like you I won't send you a LMGTFY page:
<http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/UserManual.html#hostossupport>
<http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/UserManual.html#KnownIssues>
I use it. It works perfectly for my (admittedly limited) needs for XP.
I'll never get around to Win 7 anyway, although I think you can get it
to run. I use it to check some of my bleeding-edge CSS concoctions
against that steenking MS crap they call a "browser."
--
Suddenly he realized that he was alone
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
-- Chester Himes
dorayme
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-216...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > What are the Mac machine and/or OS requirements in short, please?
>
>
> 'cause I like you I won't send you a LMGTFY page:
>
> <http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/UserManual.html#hostossupport>
> <http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/UserManual.html#KnownIssues>
>
> I use it. It works perfectly for my (admittedly limited) needs for XP.
> I'll never get around to Win 7 anyway, although I think you can get it
> to run. I use it to check some of my bleeding-edge CSS concoctions
> against that steenking MS crap they call a "browser."
Right, thanks, I get tired of searching, my life is too much of a long
quest for meaning and the universe owes me some answers. <g>
Your motives more or less coincide with mine. But there is Chrome too,
not sure how long before it will be for Mac natively (I don't feel like
"Sign(ing) up to get news about development for Mac. They should just
say in summary at <http://www.google.com/chrome>)
And also there are one or two Mac programs that I have that are unlikely
to work on Intel, but I have Win equivalents on my windows box (perhaps
I am unlikely to want to use them against my general unwillingness to
hang about Windows machines?). I have yet to buy an Intel machine.
--
dorayme
Warren Oates
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> And also there are one or two Mac programs that I have that are unlikely
> to work on Intel, but I have Win equivalents on my windows box (perhaps
> I am unlikely to want to use them against my general unwillingness to
> hang about Windows machines?). I have yet to buy an Intel machine.
Why are the fonts so ugly on Windows? Do they really not have an Arial
that looks as good as ours? When I say "arial, verdana, sans-serif" I
expect it to render pretty on any OS, not just OS X.
As for Chrome, I've played with it in my Virtual Box XP, and I don't
think I see the point. It renders my pages okay, which is what matters
(so does Win Opera and Win FF and even IE for that matter). Chrome is
kind of ugly, and they have these "themes" that look like something out
of a Twitter nightmare. It doesn't seem any "faster" than any of the
others. I won't try Safari in Winders, I dunno why, I don't use it much
on the Mac, although I like its debug tool. I had Firebug for a while,
but it crashed my Firefox over and over and ... so I dumped it.
Davoud
> I love my Mac, but I am finding more and more times that I need to be
> running on a PC for work, however, I hate having to switch computers.
> Obviously, these programs come to mind. Which to buy? And, Why? Thanks!
> I love my Mac, but I am finding more and more times that I need to be
> running on a PC for work, however, I hate having to switch computers.
> Obviously, these programs come to mind. Which to buy? And, Why? Thanks!
Neither. The key is that you need to run Windows for _work_. I have
licenses for both Parallels and VMWare Fusion. Both of them work OK for
the most casual of uses. They are sluggish (slow to boot, e.g.) and not
suited for demanding software on _most_ Macs. If you have the most
powerful Mac Pro, you may be satisfied. Even the fastest MBPro -- which
is no slouch -- is not all that great with virtualization software for
heavy lifting.
Get Windows and install it on its own partition using Bootcamp. Boot
Windows and run as necessary. Buy and maintain a good anti-virus and
anti-malware program, do all the anti-virus and MS updates, and you'll
be fine.
Davoud
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
dorayme
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-4A6...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > And also there are one or two Mac programs that I have that are unlikely
> > to work on Intel, but I have Win equivalents on my windows box (perhaps
> > I am unlikely to want to use them against my general unwillingness to
> > hang about Windows machines?). I have yet to buy an Intel machine.
>
> Why are the fonts so ugly on Windows? Do they really not have an Arial
> that looks as good as ours? When I say "arial, verdana, sans-serif" I
> expect it to render pretty on any OS, not just OS X.
>
Yes, text on Macs always looking rather beautiful, at least on X, in no
small measure because of good smoothing algorithms. I understand that
Windows (XP at least) has something called something like ClearType (I
will look at this next time I fire up the winbox). Fonts and font
management have always been superior on Macs. It is sometimes quite a
shock to see ones sites on a Winbox! I have a competent web designer
friend who works on Windows and I mentioned the splotchy appearance (to
me) of text on Windows. He said he preferred it to the appearance he got
from using the Windows smoothing algorithms (presumably ClearType?).
But there is also the question of fonts themselves. In some cases, for
example, Macs have a good Courier but Windows are still in bitmap for
it. (Courier New is a different case but has not got that nice old
fashioned typewriter quality).
Not sure you know about the issues with Verdana. It is a nice enough
font, but I generally keep away from it because of the issues. There is
a vast literature on this! Here is one page:
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html>
> As for Chrome, I've played with it in my Virtual Box XP, and I don't
> think I see the point. It renders my pages okay, which is what matters
Yes, that is what matters, the idea, of course, being to provide for
those who do use it (for whatever reason)
> (so does Win Opera and Win FF and even IE for that matter). Chrome is
> kind of ugly, and they have these "themes" that look like something out
> of a Twitter nightmare. It doesn't seem any "faster" than any of the
> others. I won't try Safari in Winders, I dunno why, I don't use it much
> on the Mac, although I like its debug tool. I had Firebug for a while,
> but it crashed my Firefox over and over and ... so I dumped it.
I use Safari as standard for my own browsing but am firing up other
browsers left right and centre for working on websites. FF is good for
analysis. I use the Web developer extensions like the Pedrick one for
'test editing' CSS, HTML where there are some problems.
--
dorayme
Warren Oates
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Not sure you know about the issues with Verdana. It is a nice enough
> font, but I generally keep away from it because of the issues. There is
> a vast literature on this! Here is one page:
>
> <http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html>
Hmm. Interesting. I like Arial mostly. The wife was using Papyrus long
before it wound up on the menus of every new-age vegetarian restaurant
in the Universe.
Hey, Comic Sans walks into a bar, and bartender says "I'm sorry, we
don't serve your type here."
Marc Heusser
wrote:
> Get Windows and install it on its own partition using Bootcamp. Boot
> Windows and run as necessary. Buy and maintain a good anti-virus and
> anti-malware program, do all the anti-virus and MS updates, and you'll
> be fine.
I find virtualization eg by Parallels speedy enough for the few
programmes I really need to run under Windows (this excludes anything
with heavy demand on graphics).
But: I need BootCamp and the machine booted under Windows to run
copy-protected CD's (learning aids for medicine) as their copy
protection scheme seems to rely on badly written CD tracks that
sometimes read as 1 and sometimes as 0 or some such. These tests will
reliably report the CD as not being an original one - even thoug it is.
:-(
Parallels allows to reuse the BootCamp partition for the virtual box,
saving hard disk space in this way.
Marc
--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
<http://www.heusser.com>
P. Sture
Marc Heusser <marc.h...@byeheusser.commercialspammers.invalid>
wrote:
> In article <121120091729142760%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Get Windows and install it on its own partition using Bootcamp. Boot
> > Windows and run as necessary. Buy and maintain a good anti-virus and
> > anti-malware program, do all the anti-virus and MS updates, and you'll
> > be fine.
>
> I find virtualization eg by Parallels speedy enough for the few
> programmes I really need to run under Windows (this excludes anything
> with heavy demand on graphics).
> But: I need BootCamp and the machine booted under Windows to run
> copy-protected CD's (learning aids for medicine) as their copy
> protection scheme seems to rely on badly written CD tracks that
> sometimes read as 1 and sometimes as 0 or some such. These tests will
> reliably report the CD as not being an original one - even thoug it is.
> :-(
I totally understand why someone would want to protect such CDs from
piracy, but surely there has to be a better way to do it?
> Parallels allows to reuse the BootCamp partition for the virtual box,
> saving hard disk space in this way.
>
> Marc
--
Paul Sture
P. Sture
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-520...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Not sure you know about the issues with Verdana. It is a nice enough
> > font, but I generally keep away from it because of the issues. There is
> > a vast literature on this! Here is one page:
> >
> > <http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html>
>
> Hmm. Interesting. I like Arial mostly. The wife was using Papyrus long
> before it wound up on the menus of every new-age vegetarian restaurant
> in the Universe.
It depends what you are doing. For computer commands and product
registration keys it can be a nightmare, since capital "I" looks the
same as lowercase "l".
> Hey, Comic Sans walks into a bar, and bartender says "I'm sorry, we
> don't serve your type here."
:-)
--
Paul Sture
Michael Siemon
> In article <marc.heusser-2006...@news.uzh.ch>,
> Marc Heusser <marc.h...@byeheusser.commercialspammers.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Parallels allows to reuse the BootCamp partition for the virtual box,
> > saving hard disk space in this way.
> >
> > Marc
So does Fusion.
Jolly Roger
jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> gatrball <gord...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I love my Mac, but I am finding more and more times that I need to be
> > running on a PC for work, however, I hate having to switch computers.
> > Obviously, these programs come to mind. Which to buy? And, Why? Thanks!
>
> I prefer Fusion, but that's cause I find it best for games. You'd
> probably get by fine with the free Virtual Box
> <http://www.virtualbox.org/> unless you need to run Direct X or OpenGL
> apps.
Speaking of Fusion & games, has anyone tried running 3D games like COD4
in Fusion version 3 with its new 3D acceleration support?
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In article <1j93k26.iulp1sqv60kkN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> > gatrball <gord...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I love my Mac, but I am finding more and more times that I need to be
> > > running on a PC for work, however, I hate having to switch computers.
> > > Obviously, these programs come to mind. Which to buy? And, Why? Thanks!
> >
> > I prefer Fusion, but that's cause I find it best for games. You'd
> > probably get by fine with the free Virtual Box
> > <http://www.virtualbox.org/> unless you need to run Direct X or OpenGL
> > apps.
>
> Speaking of Fusion & games, has anyone tried running 3D games like COD4
> in Fusion version 3 with its new 3D acceleration support?
Nothing that new, but games like Half Life and Unreal run great.
Biagio
I prefer Parallels Desktop 5 over Fusion 3 because of the speed.
Parallels Desktop 5 is much faster then Fusion. Fusion has a beter
"menubariconstuff"...
--
Greets Biagio
Jolly Roger
bia...@usenet4all.invalid (Biagio) wrote:
The speed difference is minimal from what I've read. I fund Fusion to be
plenty fast. VMware Fusion tends to have fewer hardware (USB etc.)
compatibility issues as well.
Jolly Roger
jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1j93k26.iulp1sqv60kkN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> > jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> >
> > > gatrball <gord...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I love my Mac, but I am finding more and more times that I need to be
> > > > running on a PC for work, however, I hate having to switch computers.
> > > > Obviously, these programs come to mind. Which to buy? And, Why? Thanks!
> > >
> > > I prefer Fusion, but that's cause I find it best for games. You'd
> > > probably get by fine with the free Virtual Box
> > > <http://www.virtualbox.org/> unless you need to run Direct X or OpenGL
> > > apps.
> >
> > Speaking of Fusion & games, has anyone tried running 3D games like COD4
> > in Fusion version 3 with its new 3D acceleration support?
>
> Nothing that new, but games like Half Life and Unreal run great.
I tried COD4 in Fusion 3 last night and it was dog slow and problematic,
to say the least. : (
Calum
> I prefer Fusion, but that's cause I find it best for games. You'd
> probably get by fine with the free Virtual Box
> <http://www.virtualbox.org/> unless you need to run Direct X or OpenGL
> apps.
VirtualBox supports accelerated DirectX and OpenGL too. (Probably not
quite as well as Fusion yet, though.)
Jamie Kahn Genet
My point, though I could have been clearer :-) Virtual Box has a little
way to go before it's good enough for graphic intensive games, IME.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In article <1j974k2.8zy40z14u8ftfN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1j93k26.iulp1sqv60kkN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> > > jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> > >
> > > > gatrball <gord...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I love my Mac, but I am finding more and more times that I need to
> > > > > be running on a PC for work, however, I hate having to switch
> > > > > computers. Obviously, these programs come to mind. Which to buy?
> > > > > And, Why? Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > I prefer Fusion, but that's cause I find it best for games. You'd
> > > > probably get by fine with the free Virtual Box
> > > > <http://www.virtualbox.org/> unless you need to run Direct X or OpenGL
> > > > apps.
> > >
> > > Speaking of Fusion & games, has anyone tried running 3D games like COD4
> > > in Fusion version 3 with its new 3D acceleration support?
> >
> > Nothing that new, but games like Half Life and Unreal run great.
>
> I tried COD4 in Fusion 3 last night and it was dog slow and problematic,
> to say the least. : (
I'm not surprised given how Fusion strains to run ancient Half Life well
for me (huge CPU usage for good playable FPS, compared to usage booted
in Windows) on my 2.8GHz 24" iMac.
I reckon you'll have to bite the bullet and boot into Windows each time
you want to play anything as new as COD4. Or WINE/Crossover might work
for you, though I only see COD2 listed on Codeweaver's pages. However
when Crossover will work, it gets near native Windows performance - much
better than virtualisation IME.
What Mac are you running JR?
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In article <1j96cjj.1ewk4na186he8pN%bia...@usenet4all.invalid>,
> bia...@usenet4all.invalid (Biagio) wrote:
>
> > gatrball <gord...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I love my Mac, but I am finding more and more times that I need to be
> > > running on a PC for work, however, I hate having to switch computers.
> > > Obviously, these programs come to mind. Which to buy? And, Why? Thanks!
> >
> > I prefer Parallels Desktop 5 over Fusion 3 because of the speed.
> > Parallels Desktop 5 is much faster then Fusion. Fusion has a beter
> > "menubariconstuff"...
>
> The speed difference is minimal from what I've read. I fund Fusion to be
> plenty fast. VMware Fusion tends to have fewer hardware (USB etc.)
> compatibility issues as well.
I can echo that - I've had zero trouble using my wide variety of USB
devices in Fusion (once I worked out how the hell to do that - like
Parallels, Fusion's included documentation is sorely lacking) :-)
Jolly Roger
Mac Pro (Early 2008) with a ATI Radeon HD 4870.
I might try Crossover with COD4. I do have the Mac version, but I'm
interested to see if running the Windows version of COD MW2 might be
feasible. I figure if COD4 will run, there may be a chance the Windows
version of MW2 might as well.
Jamie Kahn Genet
Well worst comes to worst you should at least be able to play newer 3D
games than I can in Fusion :-)
Man would I kill for a Mac Pro - even a 2008 model. Though when the time
comes for me to upgrade (two more years if I can stand it) I reckon
those new 27" quad core iMacs (no doubt even faster by then) are a more
likely and economical choice for me. Their new LED screens are a thing
of beauty *sigh*
I just hope Apple doesn't let their graphics cards lag behind the PC
world too much. More than anything else it's my mid-2007 iMac's lame ATI
Radeon HD 2600 Pro with 256MB VRAM that holds it back. Annoyingly the
white 24" iMac my model replaced actually had a BTO option to upgrade
the graphics card. Why Apple removed that option still baffles me to
this day :-\ Grrrr...
Jolly Roger
jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1j97o75.s2ge491gqtc9aN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> > jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> >
> > > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1j974k2.8zy40z14u8ftfN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> > > > jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> > > >
> > > What Mac are you running JR?
> >
> > Mac Pro (Early 2008) with a ATI Radeon HD 4870.
> >
> > I might try Crossover with COD4. I do have the Mac version, but I'm
> > interested to see if running the Windows version of COD MW2 might be
> > feasible. I figure if COD4 will run, there may be a chance the Windows
> > version of MW2 might as well.
>
> Well worst comes to worst you should at least be able to play newer 3D
> games than I can in Fusion :-)
Yep. I bought the Radeon last year, and it's been a huge improvement!
> Man would I kill for a Mac Pro - even a 2008 model. Though when the time
> comes for me to upgrade (two more years if I can stand it) I reckon
> those new 27" quad core iMacs (no doubt even faster by then) are a more
> likely and economical choice for me. Their new LED screens are a thing
> of beauty *sigh*
I know! LED is the way to go!
BTW, I'm still using my old original plastic bevel 23" Cinema Display
with my Mac Pro. Kinda retro - but still working great! : )
> I just hope Apple doesn't let their graphics cards lag behind the PC
> world too much. More than anything else it's my mid-2007 iMac's lame ATI
> Radeon HD 2600 Pro with 256MB VRAM that holds it back. Annoyingly the
> white 24" iMac my model replaced actually had a BTO option to upgrade
> the graphics card. Why Apple removed that option still baffles me to
> this day :-\ Grrrr...
I hear you. I hate that we can't just pop in the same cards the rest of
the world uses. : /