Vista with VMWare Fusion

fjon

I had Boot Camp installed for a few months, but found it a pain to have to reboot to use Windows, so I've installed VMware fusion.
Problem is, there are now parts of Vista that can't display properly because it doesn't seem to be able to recognise the graphics driver (for example Aero, or any of the games). It was no problem in Boot Camp though.
When I look at the performance rating, it shows up as 1, although it was 3 or 4 when I ran it under Boot Camp.
I've installed the drivers that are on the Mac OSX disc, but that didn't help.
Any ideas?

silvine

VMWare runs slower than Bootcamp. It can't do Directx 9 and it won't run most games. I think it's an over-rated product to be honest.

fjon

Thanks Silvine,

That explains it. Would Parallels be any better at that?

J-blk

fjon wrote: »

Would Parallels be any better at that?

No it wouldn't. Both Fusion and Parallels allow you to run virtual machines - as a result, they end up creating some devices as virtual, instead of using the physical hardware in your Mac. So for example, my MacBook Pro has an Nvidia 8600M GT which works fine and at full power under Boot Camp - in Fusion/Parallels though, your graphics card gets installed as a virtual SVGA or something to that extent. Installing Nvidia drivers does not help because for all intents and purposes, the system does not see that card as installed and this cannot be changed. Essentially, if you need to run Windows applications/games using your full hardware resources, that's what Boot Camp is for. If you only need to use lighter-weight apps in Windows and hate rebooting, a VM solution using Fusion/Parallels is best.

fjon

Thanks J-Blk, that's some great information.
Wish I'd read that before removing Bootcamp.
I think I'll stick with VMware for now, and if I find I need to use graphic-intensive stuff on Windows I'll revert back to Bootcamp.

J-blk

fjon wrote: »

Thanks J-Blk, that's some great information.
Wish I'd read that before removing Bootcamp.
I think I'll stick with VMware for now, and if I find I need to use graphic-intensive stuff on Windows I'll revert back to Bootcamp.

You should note though that both Fusion and Parallels can use your Boot Camp partition as a VM. So you could use the same partition through Boot Camp to play games/do the heavy-weight stuff but also use it in Fusion without rebooting when all you want to do is run something light-weight in Windows.

fjon

right, would that take up any more hDD space? I only have a few gigs left...

J-blk

fjon wrote: »

right, would that take up any more hDD space? I only have a few gigs left...

Nope, it would have the opposite effect since you would be using the one Windows partition for both Boot Camp and Fusion, rather than having two distinct Windows installations. The only problem is that you would have to scrap your current Fusion VM and start from scratch installing Windows using Boot Camp and then import that as a VM in Fusion. It's a hassle installing with Boot Camp too, as you'll probably have to repartition your system drive but you've obviously been through all that before...

I'd love to see the day when VMs are closer to the "real-life" performance of the hardware you are using, but I'm not sure that'll ever happen...

fjon

Ok, I might leave it a while before attempting that. I've just done the Vista reinstall and got all the updates and progs I want, don't want to spend hours doing it again.
I didn't realise there were these limitations running VMs, I learned something new. Would be good alright if they worked better.

J-blk

Well, they are improving them all the time - in fact, the latest beta of Fusion 2.0 was released yesterday (all betas and the full version of Fusion 2.0 will be a free upgrade for Fusion 1.x users):

http://communities.vmware.com/community/beta/fusion

This has some improvements in the DirectX region too but don't expect anything dramatic. Boot Camp is still going to be your only real option for Windows gaming.

Up to a couple of years ago, VM applications were mostly marketed to IT administrators for server virtualization - the home VM market is still very young.

Talisman

Why you would want to run Vista on top of OS X is beyond me. Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion run 2000 and XP fine. Vista is a resources hog and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a desktop VM environment.

fjon

Just happened I have a Vista CD & license. I don't have one for XP or 2000 and don't want to spend money or go down the illegal route.
XP would have been fine for me, and takes up way less HD space too.

J-blk

Talisman wrote: »

Why you would want to run Vista on top of OS X is beyond me. Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion run 2000 and XP fine.

In all fairness, the OP did mention that he wants to be gaming on the Windows side so even with XP, though performance would indeed be better in the VM, he still would not be able to play demanding 3D games and have to go down the Boot Camp route anyway.

Draupnir

Talisman wrote: »

Why you would want to run Vista on top of OS X is beyond me. Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion run 2000 and XP fine. Vista is a resources hog and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a desktop VM environment.

Some of us use Macbooks as our work machines, Visual Studio doesn't come in too many OS X flavours! I find Fusion a good product to work with to be honest.