VMware Fusion 7 Launches with Virtualization Support for OS X Yosemite and Windows 8.1

Can anyone give me just one reason, why to buy this if you want to run Windows on your Mac? We have Bootcamp and it's free - With VMware you have to pay for both Windows and VMware.

VMware must be slower than running a real install. And it costs you more.

You want to do something totally insane, like not reboot your Mac and run Windows apps right next to your Mac apps.

I know. But with VMware you have to purchase Windows AND WMware. I still see no reason.

But thx for the answers :-)

When your work requires to use just one application that only runs on Windows, you will see how shelling out $80 (by your boss) is a world changing shift from rebooting every thirty minutes.

Can anyone give me just one reason, why to buy this if you want to run Windows on your Mac? We have Bootcamp and it's free - With VMware you have to pay for both Windows and VMware.

VMware must be slower than running a real install. And it costs you more.

you can run windows within mac. among other things.

VMware's usage of Windows 7 in their promo shots really highlights the fact that Windows 8.1 still isn't as good as 7 :D

Where are all the comments like "annual subscription", "these upgrades should be free", "I will never buy from that company again" like we say in the Parallels thread? There is even less innovation warranting the upgrade prices in Fusion 7 than there is in Parallels 10.

No one really wants to run Windows 8.anything on a PC, let alone on a Mac. Any Windows user or IT person I know either uses Win 7 Pro still or wishes they could.

Well, I'm an "IT person" and I prefer Windows 8.1 (in desktop mode, if you want to call it that) over any of its predecessors. Why? It's MUCH faster than Win 7 or XP. It's more secure out of the box than any other desktop OS on the market. It's rock solid.

All that being said - if you NEED to run Windows on a Mac - or a PC that is supposed to run Linux as its main operating system - you have chosen the wrong main platform for your daily work. You should have stayed with Windows, period.

Virtualization is awesome - but as I've said, I'm an "IT person". I run dozens of production servers on a VMWare vSphere cluster. Solutions like VMWare Fusion are awesome for developers and for learning and testing purposes.

But like I've said, if you NEED such a tool on your desktop machine to run an application that you NEED for your daily work - you should have chosen Windows as your main platform, period. It doesn't make any sense to double your platform complexity and maintenance costs just because you bought into some hype and decided to go with an OS that does not have the application software that you NEED.

All that being said - if you NEED to run Windows on a Mac - or a PC that is supposed to run Linux as its main operating system - you have chosen the wrong main platform for your daily work. You should have stayed with Windows, period.

I NEED to run windows on a mac (visual studio), but I also NEED to run xcode. I don't want 2 machines, and I want to easily share data between the 2 platforms.

There are use cases for parallels/vmware, otherwise why would people buy it (Also its a lot cheaper in hardware cost and support/backups/restore time to have a couple of virtual machines on one set of hardware, regardless of what operating systems are actually in play).

But like I've said, if you NEED such a tool on your desktop machine to run an application that you NEED for your daily work - you should have chosen Windows as your main platform, period. It doesn't make any sense to double your platform complexity and maintenance costs just because you bought into some hype and decided to go with an OS that does not have the application software that you NEED.

VMware/Parallels/VirtualBox is a pretty good reason why you can choose OS X as your main platform. Sure, there are extra expenses, but there are plenty of reasons why you might prefer OS X for all your other stuff. Why should Windows keep such a firm grip on everyone, just because some proprietary software is not available on OS X? I can understand completely why some people would like to take this option. Moreover, it could entice more developers to bring their applications to the Mac.

Wtf? Pay again, already? Sorry but this is getting ridiculous. We are currently at 6.04 - There is nothing in-between that and 7.0? I'm out of this. When VMware stops working it's time to start using VirtualBox... I'm fed up with this "hey look we have a bug fix release - pay us again" attitude 8(

But like I've said, if you NEED such a tool on your desktop machine to run an application that you NEED for your daily work - you should have chosen Windows as your main platform, period. It doesn't make any sense to double your platform complexity and maintenance costs just because you bought into some hype and decided to go with an OS that does not have the application software that you NEED.

Complete cobblers, I have a bundle of Windows only access control systems I need access to on a daily basis. Some of them are well past their sell by date and only run under XP.

Even if they all suddenly ran under 7 or 8 they cant be trusted to play nice together.Very few of them have ever been designed on basis they'll share a live install with a competing product.

Likewise programing/diagnostics software for some of the door controllers and ancillary kit: Windows only and some of the serial based ones with particular COM port and baud rate requirements.

Whichever way I'd swing it Id still be using multiple VMs for that aspect of my work. I'm neither paid nor interested in farting around for umpteen weeks coaxing them into working together under a single OS in a single install; something they'd never have to in their real world deployments.

I might be in those VMs three hours one day, just half an hour the next. Having those apps dictate the OS I use for all the other aspects of my work is letting the tail wag the dog.