VMware announces VMware Fusion 3 details


Recommended Posts

VMware announces VMware Fusion 3 details

VMware has announced that VMware Fusion 3, the next major release of its virtualization solution for running Windows, Linux, and other operating systems on Intel-powered Macs, will ship on October 27. The new version ($80, with an upgrade available for $40) promises more than 50 new features, including changes designed to make it run well in Snow Leopard. The virtualization engine in Fusion 3 is completely 64-bit native, and will run in 64-bit mode under both Leopard and Snow Leopard for users of 64-bit-CPU-equipped Macs.

Fusion 3 also offers greatly improved graphics support, including support for OpenGL 2.1 and DirectX 9.0c Shader Model 3. For the first time in Fusion, users will be able to use the ?Aero? visual effects in both Windows 7 and Windows Vista.

Users of physical Windows machines looking to move to Fusion 3 on the Mac will find the task has been greatly simplified. A small program on the physical PC is first run, which generates a four-digit code. Users then move to the Mac and run the migration assistant, which will ask for the four-digit code. After providing the code, the Mac will find the physical Windows PC, and set up an identical virtual machine?all without any user intervention.

Fusion Unity mode?whereby the Windows desktop is hidden and Windows applications and windows appear alongside those of OS X?has also been improved over its predecessor. Users will be able to switch between windows of a Windows application using Command-`, as they can in OS X. Windows application icons in the Dock will show a list of open windows when clicked, just like OS X applications in the Dock. You can even use Dock Expos? in Snow Leopard to show just the windows associated with a particular Windows application. Finally, a new Fusion menu bar icon provides access to the items in the Start Menu and on the Task Bar, along with some other often-used tasks.

VMware has worked toward improved performance throughout the application, reducing memory usage where possible and adding small refinements. Dragging windows in Unity mode will be notably faster than before, and CPU usage is lower than it was previously. Users will be able to copy and paste not just text but graphics as well between Windows and OS X. Fusion 3 will support multiple cores in virtual machines, as opposed to the multiple CPUs supported in Fusion 2. Virtual machines will also launch more quickly than they did in Fusion 2.

On the front end, the new virtual machine library overview window loads faster, and shows real time views of your virtual machines?even if its windows are hidden or it?s running in Unity mode. A new simplified interface makes it easier for users to create new virtual machines and handle other routine tasks. Finally, application updates are built right into the program, so users won?t need to visit the web site to download updates.

For those who need technical support, Fusion 3 will offer 18 months of free e-mail tech support (up from 30 days for the current product), as well as the option of $29 per incident phone support?a service option that wasn?t available at all with Fusion 2.

Users can pre-order the full $80 version of VMware Fusion 3 from VMware?s site, the Apple Online Store, and Amazon.com starting Tuesday. Upgrades from prior versions will be available for $40 on October 27 at vmware.com, as well as at all authorized resellers.

souricon.gif News source: Macworld

How does Fusion 3 compare to Parallels?

I've always thought Fusion was a better product than Parallels even since Fusion was in beta status. In my (very unscientific) tests, it seems to perform better than Parallels. It's also more "Mac-like" and less invasive to your system (though Parallels 5 is changing up how it operates to function in a very similar way).

Plus, it has a very large community and tons of "appliances" you can download to get ready-made VMs up and running in no time.

Parallels always felt bloated compared to VMware Fusion. Although I really like what they've done to v5's interface. Haven't seen screen shots of VMWare Fusion 3 yet.

Here you go:

Fusion3_Aero_ars-thumb-640xauto-8959.png

Fusion3_appmenu_ars.png

"Found" a copy and been running it since last night. I can't believe how stable a beta build has been... Win7, Linux, etc. all work great.

For me, though, the single greatest improvement with VMware Fusion 3 is that when setting up a Linux virtual machine, it downloads and installs the VMware Tools BEFORE you actually install your Linux distro. That means as soon as it's installed and you can log in to your user account, the tools you need are already installed and running, which is a major time saver.

For the first time in Fusion, users will be able to use the ?Aero? visual effects in both Windows 7 and Windows Vista.

Why are they focusing on OS X when their main product is Workstation?

They should enable Aero on VMWare Workstation which have virtual machines that use a guest OS that supports Aero

Why are they focusing on OS X when their main product is Workstation?

They should enable Aero on VMWare Workstation which have virtual machines that use a guest OS that supports Aero

VMware Workstation 7.0 will be out soon as well, which is going to support Aero in Vista/7 guests.

Why are they focusing on OS X when their main product is Workstation?

They should enable Aero on VMWare Workstation which have virtual machines that use a guest OS that supports Aero

What is with you and the hate for developers that like to give equal attention to both Windows and OS X?

Fusion probably makes a lot of money for VMware considering there are a lot of switchers that, at first, think they still need to run some specific Windows apps. There are also people, like me, that use it to test things out in a Windows environment or in Windows only software (IE in particular).

Why are they focusing on OS X when their main product is Workstation?

They should enable Aero on VMWare Workstation which have virtual machines that use a guest OS that supports Aero

Why shouldn't they if they're making good money by supporting the Mac platform? Like Elliott I fail to understand this attitude of yours.

Can you run glass with Unity (I'm guessing that's a no)

For obvious reasons: no. Unity is meant to integrate the software in a vm with the OS X environment you're in. That would mean those Unity apps will have to behave the same way as the other apps in OS X. Therefore fancy stuff that only works in Windows won't work.

For me, though, the single greatest improvement with VMware Fusion 3 is that when setting up a Linux virtual machine, it downloads and installs the VMware Tools BEFORE you actually install your Linux distro. That means as soon as it's installed and you can log in to your user account, the tools you need are already installed and running, which is a major time saver.

Fusion 2 introduced the Easy Install feature for Linux as well as Unity for Linux. In Fusion 1 those features were Windows only. The only new thing in Fusion 3 is downloading the VMware Tools if you don't have it on your machine. There is a plus side to this, they might sent out regular updates for their VMware Tools which would increase support for new operating systems (new Linux versions, new Linux distros, etc.).

What is with you and the hate for developers that like to give equal attention to both Windows and OS X?

Fusion probably makes a lot of money for VMware considering there are a lot of switchers that, at first, think they still need to run some specific Windows apps. There are also people, like me, that use it to test things out in a Windows environment or in Windows only software (IE in particular).

VMware already had a product to do virtualisation on your computer with a lot of nifty stuff. The name of that piece of software is Workstation and it works on Windows and Linux. In that regard it's weird that they did not create Workstation for Mac which is exactly what Parallels did do with their workstation virtualisation software. However, OS X has a different interface and different guidelines when compared to Windows/Linux. In that regard it would be weird if they did port Workstation to the Mac. They could have ported it and made it fit in Apple's HIG so it looks and works like any other OS X app. They didn't, they created an entire new product from scratch with the problem that there are some differences between Fusion and the other products such as Workstation and Player (they did document how to overcome those differences).

For obvious reasons: no. Unity is meant to integrate the software in a vm with the OS X environment you're in. That would mean those Unity apps will have to behave the same way as the other apps in OS X. Therefore fancy stuff that only works in Windows won't work.

Applications running in Unity are still fully supported by Windows running in VMware Fusion. There are probably no real technical reasons why they can't use Aero. However, like explained before Aero Glass windows would just display the background you would see on your Windows desktop, so it would look weird in Unity.

  • 3 weeks later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
    • I'm not sure how old the school is, but they've been doing this since GTA 3. Back in those days we'd be lucky for game companies to release on the PC at all. And with the current state of Sony (or Microsoft) their gaming wing won't be getting a penny from me.
    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      572
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      173
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!