VMware Fusion for OS X ready to lift off

VMware Fusion for OS X ready to lift off

Summary: VMware is taking preorders for Fusion, its virtualization product for Mac OS X. With Fusion, you can run Windows, Solaris and Linux on a Mac without rebooting.

SHARE:

VMware is taking preorders for Fusion, its virtualization product for Mac OS X.

With Fusion, you can run Windows, Solaris and Linux on a Mac without rebooting. VMware's pre-order price is $39.99, but goes up to $79.99 when Fusion launches.

eWeek reports that Fusion launches Aug. 6, but the VMware site still says the "end of August."

Fusion is compatible with Vista, XP and OS X Leopard when it is available.

fusion.png

At the $79.99 price tag, VMware's Fusion is set up to compete with Parallels.

The big picture behind these virtualization products is that Apple could gain traction in the enterprise. For instance, Auto Warehousing Co. is using Mac in its enterprise with the help of software from Parallels.

However, that move is still relatively rare, but there can be a case to be made. Auto Warehousing Co. CIO Dale Frantz's business case is based on lower maintenance costs.

 

Topics: Virtualization, Apple, Hardware, Operating Systems, VMware

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

32 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • At the risk of sounding like NonZealot...

    The downside to all this is that you cannot have OS X as a guest OS. So people wanting to check for compatibility issues between Tiger and Leopard cannot use VMs for their testing.
    Michael Kelly
    • This works to Apple's favor

      [i]So people wanting to check for compatibility issues between Tiger and Leopard cannot use VMs for their testing.[/i]

      Excellent point and one that I hadn't considered although Apple certainly has. If you want to test Tiger and Leopard, you need to buy 2 physical machines. Hmmm, what company are you [b]artificially[/b] and [b]onerously[/b] forced to buy your machines from? Apple!! Good job Apple, you just found a way of doubling your sales! Apple's innovation in the area of sucking as much money out of the pockets of their victi... um... customers is astounding!
      NonZealot
      • Just install Tiger & Leopard on different drives or partitions & reboot!-NT

        NT
        raycote
        • Are you serious?

          Honestly, was that actually a serious suggestion or are you pulling my leg? If you are just joking then that was funny! If you aren't...
          NonZealot
          • you are wrong

            your statement is wrong, 2 machines are not required.

            Yes i agree in most cases for testing it would be better to have 2 machines, doing it by rebooting would be horrid if you have to test a lot back and forth...

            but still, your statement that it was required, is false.... required means there is no other options available, not that just other bad options should be overlooked.
            doh123
          • You are right

            [i]not that just other bad options should be overlooked.[/i]

            Yes. To be honest, I never considered rebooting back and forth because, as you said, it is a bad option. However, how far are we going to play this "bad option" game? If I said that laptop computers were required for people working in the field, would the "required" argument pop up again? [i]Well, laptops aren't "required" because you could get a cart, put the computer on top and a portable power generator on the bottom, fire it up, and you now have a portable desktop![/i]

            That's fine though. By basically being completely unable to come up with any argument better than "your use of the word requires is wrong", the Mac zealots have proven my point. Standardize on OSX and everything becomes more difficult although your ability to argue semantics will improve drastically!!!
            NonZealot
          • your still wrong

            you are assuming constant testing back and forth as the only way people would need it. There will not be much difference in how most programs (using APIs right) work that will be deisgned to work both on 10.4 and 10.5 (or earlier) they will not be doing constant testing in many cases. They might check the old version of OSX like... once every few days, which wouldn't make rebooting such a pain.
            doh123
        • Too difficult for Zealot to comprehend

          as he's blinded and incapacitated by an anti-Apple, pro-MS mindset.

          Why "think" (different) when you can just spew nonsense?

          ...
          MacCanuck
          • Think different?

            The ability to reboot into different OSs on different partitions is hardly something that is unique to Macs. Typically, when one says "Think Different", they mean "Think outside of the box to come up with a better solution than one could come up with by thinking inside the box". Telling someone to test in Tiger... reboot... wait 5 minutes... test in Leopard... reboot... wait 5 minutes... test in Tiger.... reboot... wait 5 minutes... test in Leopard... wait 5 minutes... reboot... wait 5 minutes... is hardly a better solution than Alt-Tabbing between virtual machines running different versions of Windows or Linux.

            People don't use virtual machines because they aren't able reboot their Dells. OSX users, however, [b]have[/b] to reboot (or buy an entirely new machine) because Apple [b]restricts[/b] their ability to virtualize OSX.

            OUCH OUCH OUCH!!!!

            I ask again, was that a serious suggestion or are you guys just having fun at my expense?
            NonZealot
          • I suppose it works as an answer to the original claim

            You claimed two separate boxen would be required, this has been shown to be untrue. Of course it's not as good as hypervisor based virtualisation but the cost is still a good deal less.

            Of course, I heard the funniest thing, you have to pay for the most expensive version of Vista if you want MS's permission to virtualise it. I suppose it's ironic that the free operating systems, which impose no such limitations, are the ones you can't use as host systems.
            odubtaig
          • Question... can you think at all?

            Way to change the argument to fit your warped mind.

            >>> [b]If you want to test Tiger and Leopard, you need to buy 2 physical machines.[/b] Hmmm, what company are you artificially and onerously forced to buy your machines from? Apple!! >>>

            No, you don't need to buy 2 machines, just set up a separate partition or boot from another drive.

            I said nothing about Mac vs Windows virtualiztion.

            I simply (just for you) pointed out [b]you don't require 2 machines[/b] as you tried to claim, so that kind of shoots down your asinine assertion and proves you have less than zero credibility in your obsessive, continually lame attempts to diss Apple.

            You should have stayed on vacation, or stayed in the institution.

            ...
            MacCanuck
          • Using that logic, we don't require keyboards

            I mean technically, we could all get away with little keypads instead of whole keyboards and you could tap the #6 3 times for an 'O', etc.

            If the [b]only[/b] defense you have to Apple's [b]artificial[/b] and [b]onerous[/b] restriction on virtualization is that I was semantically incorrect to use the term "requires" then I submit. You were right, I was wrong. Really though, it is quite the hollow "victory" for you considering you didn't have any real defense against the charge. I change the phrase from "requires 2 machines" to "is nearly unworkable without 2 machines" and your whole argument goes out the window. Wow, you are a winner!!!

            Like I said above, my team will use virtual machines and a full keyboard while your team will reboot and use a keypad to tap out their instructions. See you at the beach... in 10 years. ;)
            NonZealot
      • If you had ever used OS X...

        you might have seen the "Startup Disk" in "System Preferences." There's no need
        for two physical machines.

        Of course, facts don't interest you, do they?
        msalzberg
        • Hehe, let's lead 2 testing teams

          We will use the [b]exact[/b] same hardware and the [b]exact[/b] same software but my team will use virtualization and your team will reboot every time you want switch OSs. Let's see who finishes first. :)
          NonZealot
          • Wait, it gets even better!!

            Say you want to start each test cycle from a clean install. The OSX solution is to wipe the machine, reboot, reinstall and you are back to a clean system within hours. The virtualization simply "undoes disk changes" and you are back to a clean system within seconds.

            Say you want to test groups of 5 networked computers because your software is networking related. Your team need 5 physical computers for each tester and you need to run from computer to computer in order to reboot them all each time. My team gets it all done with 1 machine, no running around, no rebooting. Ahhhhh. When you are done, come join me at the beach. Hopefully you can finish before global warming submerges the beach under 10 feet of water! WORK FASTER WORK FASTER WORK FASTER!!!! :)
            NonZealot
          • I'd say

            You're getting worse, not better.

            Not to stop you from your full metal rant, but what do you mean and think of by virtualisation?
            zkiwi
          • Some corrections

            The OS X solution is to restore from a disk image of the clean system onto your test partition. Takes a few minutes.

            Testing network capability over a bunch of virtual adapters may be fine for an initial pass/fail check, but for final testing, you'll want a real network connection with real hardware. Especially if you want to test network performance.

            But, let's boil this down to what it's really all about. Software breaks like crazy between versions of Windows and so requires massive amounts of regression testing. And because it sucks big round river rocks to set up a multiboot solution with Windows on a single computer, people are demanding virtualization.

            When Leopard ships, shall we count how many OS X apps break under it compared with Vista?

            Would it be nice if OS X could run as a guest OS under an OS X host? Yeah. Is it as essential as it is for Windows? No.
            frgough
          • Given the way your mind seems to work..

            I'd certainly win, because you'd be stuck in an infinite loop.
            msalzberg
      • You're missing something

        A lot of developers (including the MBU at MS) will have various Macs for
        testing - including a lot of older ones that a developer can easily get
        used. Rather expensive on any platform to spend money to buy new
        hardware to test older OS versions. Of course, you might have to pay
        more for used Macs as I understand that they hold their value better
        than most PCs.
        Ken_z
    • Does that have something to do

      with the software communicating with the "security" (DRM, Whatever they call it) chip in the hardware that OSX must see in order to run, rr was it left out as an option on purpose?
      John Zern