Virtualization firm VMware today announced the launch of its new Fusion 4 software to allow Mac users to run Windows and other operating systems virtualized alongside their native OS X operating systems. Optimized for OS X Lion, VMware Fusion 4 offers more than 90 new features, including the ability to run OS X Lion in a virtual machine as is now permitted by Apple's licensing.
With more than 90 new features and now optimized for today’s multi-core Macs and OS X Lion, key features in VMware Fusion 4 include:
- Built for OS X Lion – VMware Fusion 4 is designed to provide the best Windows experience on OS X Lion. Add Windows programs to Launchpad, experience them in Mission Control, view them in full screen or switch between them using Mac gestures.
- Better Performance and Faster Graphics – VMware Fusion 4 has been engineered to run Windows and Mac applications side-by-side with incredible speed and reliability. As a 64-bit Cocoa application, it is optimized for today’s multi-core Macs and delivers 3D graphics up to 2.5-times faster than previous versions of Fusion.
- Even More "Mac-like" Experience – VMware Fusion 4 enhances the way Windows programs run on a Mac. From the brand new settings menu to the redesigned virtual machine library and snapshot menu, users have even more Mac-like experiences when running Windows programs.
- Lion Squared – VMware Fusion 4 now supports OS X Lion in a virtual machine, allowing users to get more from their Mac by running OS X Lion, OS X Lion Server, Mac OS X Snow Leopard Server and Mac OS X Leopard Server in virtual machines.
VMware Fusion 4 is being offered at a promotional price of $49.99 until the the end of the year, after which time pricing will be set at $79.99. Users who purchased Fusion 3 on or after July 20th are eligible for a free upgrade to Fusion 4.
VMware's primary competitor in the virtualization market is Parallels, which released its own Lion-optimized version two weeks ago.
Following nearly two years of rumors about a fourth-generation iPhone SE, The Information today reported that Apple suppliers are finally planning to begin ramping up mass production of the device in October of this year. If accurate, that timeframe would mean that the next iPhone SE would not be announced alongside the iPhone 16 series in September, as expected. Instead, the report...
Key details about the overall specifications of the iPhone 17 lineup have been shared by the leaker known as "Ice Universe," clarifying several important aspects of next year's devices. Reports in recent months have converged in agreement that Apple will discontinue the "Plus" iPhone model in 2025 while introducing an all-new iPhone 17 "Slim" model as an even more high-end option sitting...
Wednesday July 24, 2024 9:06 am PDT by Joe Rossignol
Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo today shared alleged specifications for a new ultra-thin iPhone 17 model rumored to launch next year. Kuo expects the device to be equipped with a 6.6-inch display with a current-size Dynamic Island, a standard A19 chip rather than an A19 Pro chip, a single rear camera, and an Apple-designed 5G chip. He also expects the device to have a...
Thursday July 25, 2024 5:43 am PDT by Tim Hardwick
Apple typically releases its new iPhone series around mid-September, which means we are about two months out from the launch of the iPhone 16. Like the iPhone 15 series, this year's lineup is expected to stick with four models – iPhone 16, iPhone 16 Plus, iPhone 16 Pro, and iPhone 16 Pro Max – although there are plenty of design differences and new features to take into account. To bring ...
Apple’s iCloud Private Relay service is down for some users, according to Apple’s System Status page. Apple says that the iCloud Private Relay service may be slow or unavailable. The outage started at 2:34 p.m. Eastern Time, but it does not appear to be affecting all iCloud users. Some impacted users are unable to browse the web without turning iCloud Private Relay off, while others are...
Apparently, all those artists were using the wrong software platform. When you need Windows to run a mission critical application, then Linux is NOT the right choice for you. Whatever ran on those Linux boxes probably would also have run on Windows or could have been written for Windows in the first place. Except for trying hard to not use what everyone else in the world uses was probably the only motivation for going with Linux in the first place, and that alone is not a good enough reason.
Sigh. That's perhaps the most crazy statement I've read today.
When you have several hundred workstations, over a thousand HPC render machines - Windows tends to become a bit pricey. For VFX, Linux *is* the industry standard platform. 95% of the standard 3D modelling and 2D/3D compositing systems run on Linux. You must remember that SGI's IRIX was the dominant OS of that industry for a long time until commodity hardware and Linux took hold and replaced it. SGIs soon became bricks and doorstops.
Photoshop was one of the rare exceptions. Disney and a few other facilities contributed funds to the Wine project to develop it sufficiently to allow Photoshop to run well enough under Linux using the Wine system. Ultimately as hardware got cheaper, VMs were a better solution. There was no other application - open source or commercial that could match Photoshop's feature set. There are one or two other products that required Windows. These were used by a very small number of artists out of the several hundred coming and going through the facility.
You're doing NOBODY a favor by adding unnecessary complexity to a system. Having to instal a VM to run a mission critical application only shows that you made a poor choice. In my book, VMs are only acceptable on developer machines or when you need to make sure that a client system meets certain security and quality standards.
I work for a web hosting firm now. I'd say the majority of all production web sites and applications that we and our customers are running are running on virtual machines. I've been using VMs now in live production environments for years and I couldn't disagree more with your statements.
I've never seen the reason for a VM running Windows on a Mac because the price is almost the same as just buying a low-end laptop with Windows 7.
For school, I needed windows and looked into Parallels and realized that for a few dollars more, I could just buy a separate Toshiba laptop. At least this allows for redundancy because if one computer breaks, I have another.
With a VM, if your Mac breaks, it breaks and that's it.
serious LOL
VMware 4 is about $50 i got win 7 for about the same, so you tell me where I can get a $100 laptop??
In my book, VMs are only acceptable on developer machines or when you need to make sure that a client system meets certain security and quality standards.
Good thing we're not all you. :rolleyes:
A lot of movie editing/artwork is done on alternative platforms. Breaking Microsoft's stranglehold on the industry would help bolster innovation some. They have turned the PC industry into a stagnant cesspool. You're preaching stagnation and immobility. "Hey it works on Windows only, use Windows!". Yeah, way to spur innovation and development.
The laptop I bought was $299 (no tax or shipping charge). Parallels was almost $200. Why pay to put Windows on an existing computer when you can have redundancy by having Windows on a separate laptop?
Virtual Box is 0$. Parallels is 90$.
Carrying only 1 computer with all the tools on it, and be able to interact with your data with software on any OS at the same time : Priceless.
Sorry you can't see the advantages in virtualizations.
Having a VM on a computer IS having two computers. I don't see how a VM with a second desktop operating system running in it actually makes life easier or less complex.
Let's see :
- Share data with cables or external media or a network - Check - Copy/paste without having to use a network based clipboard server that might or might not work properly - Check - Carrying only 1 physical computer around with all my software - Check again.
Yep, a VM is just like a 2nd computer, except for those little annoyances of actual owning 2 physical computers. :rolleyes:
I still firmly believe that when you need a VM with a second desktop OS in it, then you are basically walking with a crutch and your preferred host operating system was not the right choice for you.
My VM is for work. My computer insists on using proprietary technologies that only have Windows client. If it weren't for that, I wouldn't even need the VM. No, my work laptop is not an option (a huge hulking Dell Lattitude... I'm not carrying that POS around).
