VMware Fusion 5 AU $39.8 Workstation 9 AU $207.6

Related Stores

VMware

• • 

    ThadtheChad on 22/05/2013 - 18:05

    +2

    Well, a whole bunch of stuff actually… frozen VMs, pretty laborious network editor, inadequate host-guest integration. Also VB has issues with software breakpoints in quite a few debuggers (olly, ida and windbg).

    Lastly, hardware emulation is a hit and miss you're doing remote debugging.

    Vmware is the more mature solution (as much as I hate to say it) and as a result, most pre-packaged VMs are all in VMware format.

    Edit: For normal users I'm sure Virtualbox would serve it's purpose. I'm sure not everyone is into RE.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 23/05/2013 - 10:14

      Is this on a Mac or PC/Linux?

      A mate who used to work at IBM said they ditched VMware in favour of VirtualBox on Windows boxes as they found it ~20% faster.

      • 

        ThadtheChad on 23/05/2013 - 12:20

        These issues have been encountered on both Macs and PCs. Haven't tested it on Linux as the host.

  • 

    rankardio on 22/05/2013 - 19:00

    +1

    I've used both extensively, and I use virtualbox on windows even at work. Virtualbox on macosx is unstable, slow, buggy etc.

    for fusion this is a no brainer.

    workstation is a lot better than virtualbox too, for example, when it's loading cds it caches the whole cd in ram, making os installers faster than on baremetal. It also does things like deduplication where memory pages can be shared among several vms, allowing you to allocate more ram than you have physical ram. If you're running multiple instances of the same os, this reduces ram usage considerbly.

    but $200 is a lot to justify for these extra features unless you use virtualisation all the time.

    • 

      ThadtheChad on 22/05/2013 - 19:34

      +1 Completely agree. Unless you're not going to use the more advanced features of Workstation, it's definitely not worth it. I have a virtual lab at home that I use a fair bit, so I need the advanced features. VBoxManage is painful.

      Fusion is Workstation for Macs :-) So I'm definitely getting that.

      Still a bit hesitant to get Workstation for my desktop as it is 4x the price of Fusion. But then, migrating VMs definitely becomes easier. sigh

      Also migrating Workstation VMs to ESXi is easy! :)

• 

  theBestBastion on 22/05/2013 - 19:12

  For Mac, I believe Parallel Desktop is better than the VM Fusion.

  • 

    lasertip on 22/05/2013 - 19:32

    For Mac, I believe that bootcamp is better than any of the above.
    (This was typed on a Macbook Air running Windows 8 ;) )

  • 

    ThadtheChad on 22/05/2013 - 19:35

    Depends on what you're looking for though. If you're just looking for a way to run Windows, then maybe. If you're running proper OSes and your guest is an untrusted sandbox then maybe not. :)

  • 

    Posts on 23/05/2013 - 00:22

    I use both. I believe Fusion is better than Parallel for the fact that you can boot up a virtualised boot camp. Great for just accessing a windows application without having to boot out of OS X. Also Fusion has better control over USB devices.

• 

  mini2 on 23/05/2013 - 10:52

  +1

  .edu.au email addy + SoftEther +

  http://www.vmware.com/au/vmwarestore/academicstore.html

  It's cheaper again (for VMware Workstation at least)

  Prices have gone up even for the academic store, I remember I bought my Workstation 7 for $119 USD and got a free upgrade to 8. Now pondering if I should spend $72 to upgrade to 9….

  • 

    ThadtheChad on 23/05/2013 - 12:23

    Wow thanks mate! :)

    I'm sure this will be really good for some. I cannot for the life of me, understand why Workstation 9 is ~$200 and Fusion 5 pro is only $69.. when they essentially offer similar feature sets (sort of).