Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm already a VMWare Fusion 2 user and Fusion 3 (just released here) has numerous features in conjunction with Snow Leopard.

I'm curious to know if anyone in particular has tried it out and specifically tried out OpenGL 2.1/DirectX 9.0c compatibility. I'll probably buy it anyway but I wanted to hear anyone's experience with it.

share|improve this question
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

been running VMWare Fusion 3 for about 2 days now - was really looking forward to it just for the 64-bit OS X kernel support.

Anyway, good news is Fusion 3 is slightly faster, and I'm loving the new Application Start button located in Apple's menu bar.

Bad news - OpenGL 2.1/DirectX 9.0c compatibility still sucks. More games run now - but they still run like molasses on my MBP, and often with graphical glitches. wasn't expecting much though.

Personally, I'd recommend shelling USD$40 for the update, just for the speed increase and better integration alone. However, do it after the serial number debacle is over and VMWare gets it right.

Also - make a backup of your VMs, and give Fusion 3 trial a whirl - decide if it's worth the $40.

share|improve this answer
1  
It's safe to say that if you want native gaming performance/capability, BootCamp is your best option. For running non-graphics intensive apps, Fusion 3 is top notch! (I was a Beta tester) –  EmmEff Oct 28 '09 at 14:54
1  
+1 Caliban for the info. I know never to expect hard-core graphical games to perform similar to the non-virtualized solutions, but I was hoping this was a substantial/noticeable increase. But if Fusion3 overall is faster and the other non-gaming features are just as good, I may as well just bite and get the upgrade. –  osij2is Oct 28 '09 at 15:09
    
Thanks, EmmEff. I use Fusion largely for .NET development but I miss some of my games and I want to use my MBP exclusively for gaming as well. –  osij2is Oct 28 '09 at 15:16
    
You might also want to take a look at SizeUp, it’s very useful for moving windows between screens and spaces with the keyboard: irradiatedsoftware.com/sizeup –  Martín Marconcini Nov 12 '09 at 0:06
add comment

I'm using it since it was released (yesterday morning). I love it! Aero support, the start menu, significantly better performance in Windows 7 VMs and a slightly nicer interface make it totally worth it for me.

share|improve this answer
    
+ 1 for the info Paperflyer. Thanks for mentioning Windows 7. I've been using the beta but haven't bought it just yet. –  osij2is Oct 28 '09 at 15:10
add comment

I have a mixed set of results. I brought the upgrade and used it since the day it was released. I use Vista 32 and XP for VS2008 (vista) + SQL2008 (on XP) .NET C# Winforms development.

I was happy (despite the awful bug with Exposé + Unity where VMware won’t correctly show the content of Windows windows (lol) when in Exposé), and I think is an improvement over VMware 2.06. It’s faster and has a few more options (The menu is nice as already mentioned).

However after following Parallels on twitter and the mixed results, I decided to give Parallels 5 a try. I had a Parallels 1, 2 an 3 license, skipped 4 in favor of VMware.

Parallels 5 compiles and works noticeably faster within VS2008. The compilation clearly takes less time (didn’t benchmark but after almost two weeks working with a product, I instantly saw the speed increase). My application uses a lot of GDI+ code. I was shocked to see that it was that fast (I was always complaining about slowness in GDI+!). Parallels runs circles around VMware in that aspect.

I have a powerful box (Mac Pro 8 cores 10Gb RAM) but I had that before, so no change between both products. I have them both and I occasionally switch between them (svn update and good to go). The VMs have been converted from VMware to Parallels, so I assume that any reinstall will be even better for Parallels (waiting on Win 7 to try both on a fresh install).

Despite all this, Parallels 5 has bugs too. Some details. I’d say you give it a try. Some people think that CPU usage is all that matters, but I don’t agree. VM responsiveness and day-to-day work is what matters. So far, I prefer Parallels. Stil 13 trial days :)

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.