Parlando con i clienti in negozio mi rendo conto ogni giorno di più di quanto la gente sia male informata riguardo al parco software a disposizione per ogni tipo di piattaforma, sia essa Linux, Windows o Mac OS. In particolar modo molti mi domandano se nel tal computer è già presente Office o se devono acquistarlo a parte, se c’è “il Norton” già installato e dubbi vari di designer e ingegneri riguardo al passaggio a Mac vista la mancanza di una versione di AutoCad compatibile con i computer Apple. Su quest’ultimo argomento ci terrei a precisare una cosa: è vero, Autodesk si ostina (inspiegabilmente e paradossalmente) a non produrre una versione di Cad nativa per Mac OS, rendendo di fatto necessaria l’installazione tramite Boot Camp, Parallels o VMWare Fusion di una copia di Windows. Proprio da questo problema partirò per spiegare meglio il titolo del post: non esiste solo AutoCad. Come non esiste solo Office e neanche soltanto Norton. Ci sono invece moltissime alternative ai programmi più noti, magari meno pubblicizzati ma aventi le stesse funzioni e potenzialità. Riguardo alla modellazione 3D ecco quindi VectorWorks e ArchiCad, al posto di Office si può usare OpenOffice (per tutti i sistemi operativi e pure gratis), e per l’antivirus ci sono pure AVG, Avast! e Kaspersky. Ovviamente tutti sono liberissimi di scegliersi il software che vogliono, ma troppo spesso ho visto persone preferire un computer ad un altro (migliore) perchè spaventati dal dover “per forza” spendere quasi 200 euro per le licenze che nessun produttore di pc regala mai. Quindi spendo meno per il computer e con quello che rimane mi compro Office. Quando faccio notare che esistono (valide) alternative, molti non vogliono neanche provare ad usare qualcosa di diverso, perchè ormai Word lo conoscono e il Norton “è pesante però è il migliore”. Non inizierò una discussione su cosa è meglio e cosa è peggio, non è questo il tema. Ma se tutti provassimo ad aprire gli occhi senza aver timore del “mondo dei software nascosti” e meno conosciuti, senza dubbio staremmo, almeno dal punto di vista della produttività, molto ma molto meglio.

As an employee of an EMC partner, I periodically get access to nifty demos as VMs. Unfortunately these are usually heavily geared towards running within a VMware hosted environment, and rarely if ever port across to Parallels.

While this wasn’t previously an issue having an ESX server in my lab, I’ve slowly become less tolerant of noisy computers and so it’s been less desirable to have on – part of the reason why I went out and bought a Mac Pro. (Honestly, PC server manufacturers just don’t even try to make their systems quiet. How Dull.)

With the recent upgrade to Parallels v5 being a mixed bag (much better performance, Coherence broken for 3+ weeks whenever multiple monitors are attached), on Thursday I decided I’d had enough and felt it was time to start at least trying VMware Fusion. As I only have one VM on my Mac Book Pro, as opposed to 34 on my Mac Pro, I felt that testing Fusion out on my Mac Book Pro to start with would be a good idea.

So, what are my thoughts of it so far after a day of running with it?

Advantages over Parallels Desktop:

• VMware’s Unity feature in v3 isn’t broken (as opposed to Coherence with dual monitors currently being dead).
• VMware’s Unity feature actually merges Coherence and Crystal without needing to just drop all barriers between the VM and the host.
• VMware Fusion will happily install ESX as a guest machine.
• (For the above reason, I suspect, though I’ve not yet had time to test, that I’ll be able to install all the other cool demos I’ve got sitting on a spare drive)
• VMware’s Unity feature extends across multiple monitors in a way that doesn’t suck. Coherence, when it extends across multiple monitors, extends the Windows Task Bar across multiple monitors in the same position. This means that it can run across the middle of the secondary monitor, depending on how your monitors are layed out. (Maybe Coherence in v5 works better … oops, no, wait, it doesn’t work at all for multiple monitors so I can’t even begin to think that.)

Areas where Parallels kicks Fusion’s Butt:

• Even under Parallels Desktop v4, Coherence mode was significantly faster than Unity. I’m talking seamless window movement in Coherence, with noticeable ghosting in Unity. It’s distracting and I can live with it, but it’s pretty shoddy.
• For standard Linux and Windows guests, I’ve imported at least 30 different machines from VMware ESX and VMware Server hosted environments into Parallels Desktop. Not once did I have a problem with “standard” machines. I tried to use VMware’s import utility this morning on both a Windows 2003 guest and a Linux guest and both were completely unusable. The Windows 2003 guest went through a non-stop boot cycle where after 5 seconds or so of booting it would reset. The Linux guest wouldn’t even get past the LILO prompt. Bad VMware, very Bad.
• When creating pre-allocated disks, Parallels is at least twice as fast as Fusion. Creating a pre-allocated 60GB disk this morning took almost an hour. That’s someone’s idea of a bad joke. Testing creating a few other drives all exhibited similarly terrible performance.
• Interface (subjective): Parallels Desktop v5 is beautiful – it’s crisp and clean. VMware Fusion’s interface looks like it’s been cobbled together with sticks and duct tape.

Areas where Desktop Virtualisation continues to suck, no matter what product you use:

• Why do I have to buy a server class virtualisation product to simulate turning the monitor off and putting the keyboard away? That’s not minimising the window, it’s called closing the window, and I should be able to do that regardless of what virtualisation software I’m running.
• Why does the default for new drives remain splitting them in 2GB chunks? Honestly, I have no sympathy for anyone still running an OS old enough that it can’t (as the virtual machine host) support files bigger than 2GB. At least give me a preference to turn the damn behaviour off.

I’ll be continuing to trial Fusion for the next few weeks before I decide whether I want to transition my Mac Pro from Parallels Desktop to Fusion. The big factor will be whether I think the advantages of running more interesting operating systems (e.g., ESX) within the virtualisation system is worth the potential hassle of having to recreate all my VMs, given how terribly VMware’s Fusion import routine works…

1) i bought a cushion cover from IKEA. best thing ever. Makes my bed look less like a dirty student’s bed
2) I’ve been listening to The Man’s Machine, and all of Kings & Queens in general, all day. Jamie T, i love you.
3) Copied up all my 102ILA notes. introduction to Post-1945 France. Economy ftl. I have a mega essay to write as well. Fuuuuck :/
4) Sorted out my bedside table. and stuff. For weeks there’s just been a pile of rubbish on top of there. Now it looks kinda cool. Also note: new plant. i didn’t plan on buying that tbh. It just sorta…happened
5)  I started reading Stupeur et Tremblements, which is my set novel for my degree module. It’s suprisingly erotic for a story about a Belgian woman who essentially grows up in Japan. That’s why she’s dressed as a geisha on the cover. She’s not that crazy. Well…she is. But that’s Chapter 3. Seriously that woman had a breakdown. lmfaooo.

That’s about it. My day hasn’t been anything special. i’ve basically sat at home doing sweet bugger all. I kicked Kiran’s arse before because he threw a frisbee at me, I nearly ended up pushing him down the stairs by accident. oh and i’m installing Windows XP on my Mac. i’ve been revising German as well, but i can’t be arsed to take photos of more books. lol

gros bisous x

En la entrada anterior he descrito más o menos las diferencias iniciales entre VMware y Parallels en sus últimas versiones. He estado usando VMware 3.0 con Windows Vista 32bits (2 Cores asignados, 3 GB de RAM). Esa VM ha fue “actualizada” desde VMware 2.06. Comencé a oír “maravillas” del nuevo Parallels 5.0, que salió pocos días después que VMware, de modo que decidí “mirarlo”. El resultado fue bastante satisfactorio, digamos que me sorprendieron varias cosas, ciertas tareas son muy rápidas, la interfaz está bastante más cuidada que en VMware, y en general me pareció un producto muchísimo más completo que VMware. Pero yo ya he comprado el VMware 3.0 y mi licencia de Parallels es 4.0 y el trial de la versión 5 acaba en dos días.

Cuando probé el nuevo Parallels (el cual estuve usando estas últimas dos semanas), lo hice migrando mi VM de VMware a Parallels (el Windows Vista 32 bits), porque allí tenía todo mi entorno Visual Studio 2008, herramientas de SQL Server, etcétera. Esta última semana me llegó el Windows 7 Home Premium (OEM), así que decidí instalarlo de “cero” en Parallels. Lo hice, instalé mi Visual Studio, Service Pack, configuré todo y dejé la máquina limpia y lista para trabajar. Probé de todo, Crystal, Coherence, Full Screen, Screen, Mac Look, etcétera. Todo lo que se os pueda ocurrir que ofrece Parallels (que es mucho más que lo que ofrece VMware). El nivel de conformidad y satisfacción fue bajando conforme pasaron los días. ¿Por qué? Porque si bien pienso que Parallels ofrece más opciones y cosas para tocar, no todas funcionan bien o acaban siendo 100% funcionales. Intentaré explicar brevemente a qué me refiero a lo largo de la entrada, cuando vaya recordando las cosas.

Dada esta pequeña suma de micro-insatisfacciones, decidí que mi VMware no estaba muerto y me dije, ¿por qué no instalar también el Windows 7 en VMware y repetir toda la configuración…?

Y eso hice.

El motivo es que ahora tengo dos VMs “iguales”, instaladas del mismo modo, con todo prácticamente igual y puedo comprar el rendimiento y sobre todo las prestaciones en el día a día con un poco más de precisión.

Hardware y Software
El ordenador en el cual estoy haciendo todo es mi ordenador personal y de trabajo. Tiene OS X Snow Leopard 1.6.2.

Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro3,1
Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 2.8 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 8
L2 Cache (per processor): 12 MB
Memory: 10 GB
Bus Speed: 1.6 GHz

Dos discos duros internos (el de 1TB es Time Machine solamente)

Hitachi HDS721075KLA360:
Capacity: 750.16 GB (750,156,374,016 bytes)
Model: Hitachi HDS721075KLA360

ST31000528AS:
Capacity: 1 TB (1,000,204,886,016 bytes)
Model: ST31000528AS

Ambos son de 7200RPM.

La tarjeta de Vídeo es: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512 MB.

Y todo está conectado a estas dos pantallas:

BenQ FP92Wa:
Resolution: 1440 x 900 @ 75 Hz
Pixel Depth: 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888)

HP L1740:
Resolution: 1280 x 1024 @ 75 Hz
Pixel Depth: 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888)

Instalación y Preparativo
El proceso que utilicé es completamente extraoficial y no está basado en ningún estricto control de igualdad. El “host” (OS X) tenía varias aplicaciones abiertas, entre ellas: Adium, Mailplane, iTunes, 1Password, varios Menú Items, el Activity Monitor, etcétera. Sin embargo, no quise cerrar nada porque justamente a mi me interesan los benchmarks “reales” y no los que son pruebas de laboratorio. Yo quiero saber como anda mi VM en el día a día.

La instalación fue la misma para ambos. Inserté el DVD de Windows 7 Home Premium. File -> New VM. En ningún caso usé la instalación “Easy”, sino que fui en el modo manual e intenté poner los mismos parámetros para ambas VMs. 3GB RAM, 2 Processors, 60GB Disco, autoexpandible.
Las aplicaciones no están compartidas, ni las carpetas ni nada, salvo la carpeta de “Downloads” de OS X, que está compartida automáticamente y se puede acceder desde las VMs.

Parallels tiene Adaptive Hypervisor, AutoCompress Disks, Tune Windows for Speed, Optimize Performance for Virtual Machine y Power Consumption Better Performance.
VMware no tiene nada de esas opciones, pero tiene Preferred virtualization Engine Automatic y Hard disk buffering automatic. El disco de VMware está dividido en ficheros de 2GB (Split into 2 GB Files), opción que vino por defecto.

La red es Bridged en ambos. Y ambos tienen la misma configuración de red, ip fija, misma puerta de enlace, todo igual.

Cuando acabó el Windows 7 (mas o menos tardaron lo mismo, la verdad es que no me importa el tiempo que tardan en instalar porque no es algo que haga todos los días) ejecuté Windows Update y vinieron unos 40 MB de parches. Tras el reinicio y la configuración de red (Ip fija, cambio de Workgroup, etc), monté la imagen del Visual Studio 2008, lo instalé como viene (sin cambiar opciones). A continuación, el Service Pack de Visual Studio (SP1).
Luego instalé Total Commander (no puedo vivir sin él) y SQL Express 2008 w/advanced services. Luego Service Pack 1 de SQL 2008. Todo instalado, restauré dos bases de datos diferentes (que uso para desarrollo). Configuré el mismo wallpaper y los mismos colores, Aero naturalmente está activo y listo.

Luego me puse a hacer unas pruebas “informales” y a continuación expongo los resultados. En morado los “mejores tiempos” (siempre menos es mejor). Luego hice una segunda pasada y supongo que por motivos de caché y actividad del ordenador Host, algunos resultados variaron. Pero salvo algún caso aislado, los números fueron más o menos similares:

Los valores que no están en el segundo run han sido literalmente iguales a la primera pasada.

Conclusión
A simple vista todo parece indicar que Parallels es, en definitiva, más rápido en la “mayoría” de las cosas que VMware, excepto en abrir la aplicación; no sé por qué Parallels tarda tanto comparado con VMware.

Personalmente lo siento un poco más ágil (lo sentí desde el minuto uno y los números me están mostrando que no estaba tan equivocado). Parallels tiene algunas cosas que no están 100% pulidas. He tenido algún problema con el portapapeles que no funcionaba bien (nada que cerrando y abriendo todo de nuevo no se solucione) pero detalles de ese tipo.

Parallels parece usar un poco más el disco duro, sobre todo en operaciones como suspender una VM. En el gráfico no se ve, pero el Parallels, luego de suspender una VM y cerrar la aplicación, se quedó más de dos minutos escribiendo en el disco duro (según el Activity Monitor, unos 20MB/Seg). Este tiempo uno “no lo ve”, pero en un ordenador como un portátil o con un disco duro más lento esto puede ser realmente muy molesto.

VMware por el contrario sólo escribió a unos 5MB/seg durante unos 20 segundos luego de la misma operación.

¿CON CUAL ME QUEDO?
La primera impresión es saltar e ir a por Parallels; pero no todo es oro tampoco aquí. Hay que tener en cuenta que ni el modo Coherence ó Crystal en Parallels, ni el modo Unity en VMware son cómodos y ágiles para trabajar con Visual Studio. Al hacer Debug, y movernos con paletas, se pierde mucho la gracia de todo el trabajo, se hace más difícil encontrar bien las ventanas y bugs (en ambos) impiden que a veces se pueda encontrar la ventana que se busca, dado que un click en el Dock no siempre restaura como es debido. A eso hay que sumarle mucho flickering.

La solución es usar modo “Pantalla” o “Pantalla Completa”, que por suerte ahora, funciona con dos pantallas, pero el VMware tiene un Bug espléndido que hace que no se pueda trabajar con dos pantallas en modo Pantalla Completa por más de un rato porque se vuelve loco. No le ocurre a todo el mundo, pero ocurre y está en los Foros.

No me pasó lo mismo con Parallels (aunque yo lo uso con una sola pantalla, he probado usando todo) de momento.

Seguiré usando ambos por unos tres días más (que es el tiempo que tiene el Windows 7 de mi VMware para activarse, dado que estoy usando la misma licencia en ambos). Si me quedo en VMware, reactivaré mi Windows allí y no podré trabajar con Parallels (es un coñazo porque hay que llamar por teléfono a Microsoft).

Si el Parallels es tan rápido como parece, entonces quizás me cambie una temporada; lo que es seguro es que seguiré contándoles como me va con ambos. Seguro que en unos meses veremos actualizaciones y allí será donde podremos ver en qué han estado pensando ambos equipos. A ver si oyen a los usuarios (Algo que Parallels tiene fama de no haber hecho en sus comienzos) o si hacen lo que les da la gana.

Para trabajar con una aplicación más simple o quizás algún juego (no he probado nada de eso), habrá que ver otras pruebas y esperar un poco a ver que dice “la gente”. Yo sólo uso el Windows para Visual Studio y si no tuviese que hacerlo, es porque posiblemente me quedé sin trabajo

Se echan en falta algunas opciones en VMware… quizás peca de ser demasiado simple.

En todo caso, tengo tres días para decidirme, seguiré leyendo en Twitter y por ahí, a ver si aparece algún factor decisivo ¡hasta la próxima!

Difficulty Level: Easy - Medium

Time Required: 45-60 minutes

Installing a completely new operating system on your Mac sound a little daunting. VMware Fusion takes out a lot of the hassle, and gives you the freedom to experiment with many operating systems. Many people use VMware Fusion or Parallels to virtualize another operating system.

This guide will show you how to create a virtual machine, using a cool Linux distribution,

Ubuntu 9.10: Karmic Koala

So lets get started

1. Download this free distribution of Linux Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala here.

2. Assuming you already own VMware go ahead and open it up, if not go ahead and download the demo here.

3. On the MenuBar click “File” then select “New…” or press Command+N

4. Since we downloaded Karmic Koala as a disk image (.ISO), we are going to select “Continue without disk”

5. You will receive another page with a few options, you’re going to want to select “Use Operating System Installation Disk Image File” and navigate to the 9.10 .ISO file.

6. Once you choose the right file, VMware should auto-detect the Operating System. If not, go ahead and set it to Linux, Ubuntu:

7. The last page should come up next, it just reviews a few different options you set for the Virtual Machine. Don’t set the RAM usage too high or memory swaps will occur, and even if you’re running a multi-core machine, set it to 1 virtual processor:

8. Once VMware Fusion creates the Operating System, you’re going to see it pop up in a list. Unless you have installed other Virtual Machines, you shouldn’t have any others on this window. I have installed gOS and Windows XP Pro 64.

9. Go ahead and select the startup arrow button and Ubuntu will pop up in another window. Your install will start now, so unless you really like reading boring information about ‘How Awesome Ubuntu is’ then go ahead and step away from the computer for a bit.

10. After a while you will have completed installing Linux Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala. Congratulations. Your Virtual Machine will reboot after the install. You will see some command line flowing, followed by a log in screen:

Here it is. Your very first virtual machine running inside VMware Fusion. You can now mess around, and try out some other cool Linux Distributions. Windows can be installed by following pretty much the same directions as well.

Congratulations! Happy Virtualizing!

The two titans in Macintosh virtual machine software have both kicked up significant updates in the last little while. Parallels Desktop 5 and VMware Fusion 3 both want your hard earned dollars, but is one better than the other? I had a look at both and here’s what I think about them:

Installing Windows: It’s a wizard driven install that makes the process dead easy. This is a tie from where I sit.

Overall Speed: Both products claim that they’re faster than ever, but for me Parallels Desktop “feels” somewhat faster than VMware Fusion in my “seat of the pants testing.” For what it’s worth, both products were on the same computer and the virtual computers had the same configuration. I’m not going to assign a winner to this category as clearly, your mileage may vary when it comes to subjective items such as speed.

Graphics: Both products have significant upgrades to their graphics abilities as they now support DirectX 9 and Open GL. That means that you can do Aero and Flip 3D in Windows Vista and Windows 7, not to mention run your favorite game as well (although IMHO, that’s better done in Boot Camp). I tried a few video games in both products and had no problems running them well in either product. This category is a tie.

USB Support: My usual test of the USB support is to plug my MobiKEY into each product and see how it handles it as the MobiKEY is a rather complex device that sometimes makes USB problems in a computer show up. Parallels Desktop 5 had no issue with the MobiKEY. I plugged it in and it worked. VMware Fusion didn’t see it at first. So I did some Googling and found this VMware Communities discussion thread that explains how to enable support for the MobiKEY. Even though it was referencing an older version of VMware Fusion, it worked. But the solution was not end user friendly at all. Advantage: Parallels Desktop

Eye Candy: If you’re an eye candy sort of person, Parallels has way more eye candy than VMware Fusion. You can make Windows apps look very Mac like and there’s a feature called Crystal View which hides all your icons in the Dock and the OS X Parallels menu bar, moving access to menu items and a newly created folder icon in the Dock which has all your windows shortcuts. I personally hate eye candy so I tend to turn this stuff off. Besides, it likely frees up memory if you do that as well. VMware has made some significant changes to their user interface that are subtle but useful. For example, one interesting new feature is the Applications Menu which lives on the OS X menu bar. You can do everything you’d do within the Windows Start menu so I can see it being handy for some users. Bottom line, I find the eye candy that VMware has more useful than the stuff that Parallels Desktop has. Advantage: VMware Fusion

Technical Support: The last time I wrote about support for both VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop, I basically said that technical  support for both sucked. Now with their new versions, here’s what they offer. First here’s what VMware offers for  VMware Fusion:

For Fusion 3.x, installation assistance is offered for 18 months after product registration or until product end of life. Submit support requests either online or via phone; responses are targeted within one business day.

Now here’s what Parallels Desktop offers :

Customers upgrading to Parallels Desktop 5 to Mac or purchasing a new version of Parallels Desktop 5 for Mac are eligible for the following complimentary support options:

• 18 months free installation support by Email, starting with November 4th 2009
• 30 day complimentary Chat and Telephone support

Clearly they’re finally starting to get the message that software sold to end users requires support that easy to access. Bravo! I’m declaring this a tie.

So who comes out on top? In my mind there isn’t a clear winner as it depends on what you need virtual machine software for. If you need USB support, go with Parallels. Hands down it has better USB support. If you simply need to run Windows or some other OS on your Mac, you can’t go wrong with either product. One thing that helps is that trials for both products are available, so you can try each out and see which one suits your needs better.

With Windows 7 making its debut, some people might be wondering whether they should buy the software to install on their current PC, or shell out some dough for a sweet new box.  The short answer is, ‘You should probably get a new computer that comes with Windows 7 installed already,’ with a few exceptions.

To get the most of Windows 7, you’re going to want a 64-bit processor.  If your current PC has one (and it should if you’ve bought or built a new computer in the last year or two) then you may not need to buy a new computer, provided your motherboard allows you to upgrade to 4GB or more of RAM.  Please note that you may not need a full 4GB of RAM, but one of the huge advantages of having a 64-bit architecture is that it allows you to take full advantage of having 4GB of RAM, and the operating system will run more smoothly.

If, although, your current machine does have a 64 bit processor, and you can or already have upgraded your RAM to 4GB or more of RAM, then by all means, save some money and just buy the software.  There is, however, a third option which I prefer:  Buy a Mac.

I’ve not installed Windows 7 on a PC or upgraded from XP or Vista to Windows 7, so I cannot speak about any difficulties or compatibility issues that may or may not exist.  I have installed Windows 7 using VMWare Fusion on my Mac though, and it was ridiculously easy.  True, Macs may cost more ,  but after using a Mac for almost a year now I can safely say that, in my opinion, they are better built machines and you will have far fewer problems, whether you’re talking about compatibility issues, stability of the operating system,  viruses, or structural integrity of the chassis.

Many FSX pilots own Macs.  This means, that like me, you use a virtualization platform to run Windows within a partition on your MacintoshHD.   I personally use Boot Camp because it is free and I rarely need to run Mac programs in parallel with Windows.

To make a long story short, to check on the latest virtualizatoin news, I visited the blog for VMware Fusion; Team Fusion.  Boy was I surprised to see a post featuring FSX.  In a post titled MacWorld: First Look at VMWare Fusion 3, the team demonstrated the power of the virtualization graphics environment by running a demo of FSX. It appears to be mission where a CRJ makes a challenging approach to St Maarten. (Video below)

While the graphics didn’t seem to be set to a very high level, the fact that you could run Windows 7 and FSX from the Mac environment blows my mind.

Clearly the pilot flying the demonstration needs to learn how to fly.  Using the mouse to fly the CRJ is a little tough…  I hope that doesn’t mean joystick support has been left out?  I also wonder how FS2004 would look.

Anyway, I am off to buy Fusion 3.  How about you?

Wczoraj pokazały się aktualizacje VMware Fusion i NeoOffice, obie przede wszystkim za względu na Mac OS X 10.6 aka Snow Leopard.

W przeciwieństwie do wersji 2.0, uaktualnienie do Fusion 3.0 jest płatne; 39$ to niemal tyle, za ile można było kupić poprzednią wersję w licznych promocjach. Co wnosi? Przede wszystkim nowy Fusion jest w pełni 64-bitowy. Dotyczy to nie tylko aplikacji, ale i rozszerzeń instalowanych w systemie, co ma znaczenie przy korzystaniu z 64-bitowego jądra. Większość pozostałych ulepszeń jest związana z obsługą najnowszego systemu Microsoft, Windows 7. Ja w chwili obecnej wstrzymam się z zakupem – “stary” Fusion 2.0.6 sprawuje się bez zarzutu, a posiadając białego MacBook’a nie skorzystam ani z 64-bitowego jądra, ani z interfejsu Aero w nowych Windows (za słaba karta graficzna).

Bardzo mnie za to cieszy druga z wczorajszych aktualizacji: NeoOffice 3.0.1. Jeszcze przed przesiadką na 10.6 opisywałem powody, dla których wolę NeoOffice od “oryginalnego” OpenOffice by Sun. Po przesiadce okazało się, że wersja 3.0 nie jest zgodna z najnowszym systemem Apple, ale ponieważ codzienne potrzeby załatwia mi iWork nie było to dużym problemem i spokojnie czekałem na zapowiedzianą wersję 3.0.1. Wczoraj się doczekałem i teraz pod 10.6 mam już wszystko z wyjątkiem trzech mniej ważnych wtyczek do Safari: Cooliris, SafariDockStatus i SafariSource wciąż nie mają wersji 64-bitowych.

La gente del Team Fusion ha anunciado hoy el lanzamiento de la nueva versión mayor del software VMware Fusion. Hay bastantes novedades, algunas de ellas bastante importantes, como el funcionamiento en 64 bits.

Yo he actualizado el software esta mañana, aunque aún no he tenido tiempo de trastear, más allá de actualizar las VMware Tools de las máquinas virtuales del portátil mientras programaba. A ver qué tal se porta.

Alright so I haven’t posted since the beginning of the month and I don’t even have an excuse this time. I was lazy. In the last couple days I’ve been playing a free little game from Derek Yu that has compelled me to post though.

It’s called “Spelunky”. This game has been out for several months now and it’s gotten quite a positive critical response, so perhaps I’m a little late to this party, but it’s due out on the XBLA some time in 2010, so at least I’m ahead of those Microsoft loving plebs.

In the game, you play as a little Indiana Jones style explorer and you need to explore these pseudo randomly generated levels in order to get money and plow through to the bottom of the cave. Apparently the game was made with classics like rogue and nethack in mind, meaning it has an initially simple premise and presentation, but it’s complex and rewarding over time.

What’s so awesome about it?

There is a legitimate sense of adventure. The game gives a quick little tutorial if you want it, but it doesn’t tell you anywhere near everything you need to know to survive. You will learn about the game world as you go, and you will enjoy doing it. Maybe you thought every little pile of bones you walked by was purely decorative until one of them jumped up and attacked you. Maybe you thought you could jump on one of those Audrey II style flowering plants. Maybe level 3 had always been lit, until this time, where you need to play though it in the dark! The game does have a limited number of tricks to throw at you, but for the first many plays, it will be a joy to discover them.

It’s not a completely masochistic game though, in case you’re thinking it is the challenge gamer in me doing all the recommending here. You’ll fail ALOT on your way to the bottom, but you’ll learn as you go… and it will never feel truly unfair. The game teaches you to be careful, to learn from your mistakes, and to be methodical.

When you do die (and you will), there is no recovery. You die and the game is over, regardless of how much wealth you built up on your way through the levels. Some things take hit points from you, but some hazards kill you instantly. This makes the game truly tense when you’re down to your last hit, or when you’re dodging monkeys over a spike pit.

I won’t say the game is “infinitely replayable”, because it’s not. The game is hugely replayable though. It will be a long time before you exhaust every possibility and learns everything there is to learn about Spelunky. Even when you do, perhaps you’ll want to play through and try to get the maximum possible amount of money. Perhaps you’ll wanna get through without killing anything, or trying any number of different challenges. I made fun of this kind of gaming when I ripped apart FFVII, but with this game it is particularly encouraged, plus the game is short enough to allow for it without needing you to be a complete lunatic.

Mac users, this game is worth dual booting to play (although I run it in VMware fusion, just to let Windows know it’s subordinated). If you’re running windows and you haven’t played Spelunky yet… give it a shot!

Este post faz referência sobre virtualização computacional, modelo de abstração de recursos computacionais, afim de prover redução de recursos necessários para consolidar diferentes arquiteturas, sob um único hardware básico (ou avançado, indo do gosto do freguês).

Pretendo cobrir a parte sobre virtualização de sistemas operacionais (virtualização de plataformas), portanto, não falarei detalhadamentesobre as outras abordagens de virtualização. Apesar de ser um assunto relativamente novo, é um assunto, ao mesmo tempo, relativamente muito velho. Entendo por virtualização a grande invenção da memória virtual (que abstrai um segundo dispositivo de armazenamento, como memória principal, e estende sobre esse o espaço de endereçamento de instruções), as interfaces virtuais de rede (onde, por exemplo, dependendo das capacidades do dispositivo, pode-se criar diversas interfaces de rede virtuais, com diversos pontos de acesso em IP, por exemplo, sob um único dispositivo físico), as interfaces virtuais de armazenamento (que podem ser, desde abstrações via rede, até um storage inteiro virtual), VPNs (que nada mais são que redes inteiras virtuais), virtualização de desktops (como terminais burros, ou por exemplo, serviços de terminais remotos), virtualização e clustering de sistemas de gestão de bancos de dados, e por aí vai!

Falando sobre Hypervisor

Para entrar no tema que eu quero sobre virtualização, não dá pra começar sem falar de uma entidade chamada de Hypervisor. Este é o sujeito responsável por prover uma interface lógica entre o que vai prover um ambiente de virtualização (chamado comumente de hospedeiro) e o que vai ser virtualizado (chamado comumente de convidado). Técnicamente, é uma porção de código que é executado pelo software hospedeiro, e age como um controlador de hardware e monitor do sistema operacional do software convidado. Geralmente, nesses moldes, o sistema operacional convidado, executa sob um nível abaixo do nível do Hypervisor.

A primeira figura exibe quais as camadas definidas na arquitetura de virtualização a qual estou me referindo.

Figura 1 – Arquitetura básica da virtualização provida pelo Hypervisor.

Há dois principais modos de execução do Hypervisor. O modo nativo (portanto, para virtualization), e o modo abrigado (portanto, full virtualization).

O primeiro modo de execução, chamado abrigado (com a palavrinha mágica – hosted), faz com que toda a plataforma de hardware disponível ao convidado seja totalmente virtualizada. Portanto, são implementados e aplicados gatilhos e tratadores nas chamadas de sistema e instruções de máquina (instruções nativas – sistema operacional convidado não sofre nenhuma modificação) enviadas pelo sistema operacional convidado, e convertidas para as instruções de máquina e chamadas de sistema do sistema operacional hospedeiro, portanto, executadas nativamente. O resultado de tais ações é novamente convertido para o formato de retorno do sistema operacional convertido, e tudo caminha nas mil maravilhas.

A figura 2 mostra um modelo esquemático de aplicação do modelo 1 do Hypervisor.

Figura 2 – Arquitetura básica do modelo hospedado.

Definem-se como vantagens dessa abordagem, o fato sistema operacional convidado não precisa ser modificado; para este, é uma máquina física como qualquer outra. Não há custos adicionais, nem modificação no software original, reservando as características originais do sistema operacional convidado. A grande desvantagem dessa abordagem é o desempenho comprometido (em relação ao desempenho original, o que não significa que fique lento – leia-se sem condições mínimas de emprego em um ambiente corporativo de produção). A queda do desempenho dá-se pela interpretação de todas as instruções disparadas pelo hardware virtual disponível para a máquina convidada. Além disso, claro, ainda há o escalonamento de processos do sistema operacional, através de um núcleo premptivo.

O segundo modo de execução, chamado nativo (com a palavrinha mágica – bare-metal), cria um meio termo nas coisas. Através de um núcleo de chamadas de sistema (vulgo Kernel, no mundo *nix) modificado, torna o sistema operacional convidado, alguém que sabe que está sendo virtualizado, mas que consegue, através desse núcleo modificado, alcançar nativamente o hardware disponível na arquitetura do sistema hospedeiro. Mágico, não?

Este novo núcleo, é então parte do Hypervisor (que agora é parte do sistema operacional convidado, e parte do sistema operacional hospedeiro), fazendo com que seja mais simples chegar ao hardware, e fazer algumas traduções das chamadas mais críticas do sistema.

Como vantagens da técnica, está principalmente o desempenho, tornando as coisas mais fáceis, fazendo com que não haja tradução de instruções, nem emulação de hardware. Por exemplo, se você comprou sua nova Intel® PRO/1000 GT Desktop Adapter, ele vai ser Intel no sistema hospedeiro, e Intel no sistema convidado. Na primeira abordagem, ela seria Intel no sistema hoespedeiro, e Network Virtual Driver, no sistema convidado. A principal desvantagem é a modificação do núcleo do sistema convidado, aumentando a probabilidade do número de falhas (por sair da árvore principal de desenvolvimento do software, e ter dedos de terceiros), incompatibilidade de padrões, aumento de custo de manutenção, e blá blá blá.

A figura 3 define um modelo esquemático de como aconteceria a implantação do segundo caso.

Figura 3 – Implantação do modelo nativo do Hypervisor.

Em relação ao modelo de virtualização de plataformas, com a presença de um Hypervisor, o assunto termina por aqui. Não há muito mais novidades na área.

Continuando com o assunto de virtualização, é válido dizer que o hardware x86 é particularmente difícil de virtualizar. Com essa motivação, tanto a Intel, quanto a AMD, criaram tecnologias de virtualização diretamente embutidas no processador. A Intel a chamou de Intel-VT (VanderPool), e a AMD, AMD-V (Pacifica). Tais extensões são responsáveis por adicionar capacidades que são difíceis ou ineficientes de virtualizar via software, facilitando o trabalho do pessoal que desenvolve na área.

Falando sobre implementações

Há diversos softwares comerciais e livres que implementam este modelo de monitor de máquinas virtuais, e com a idéia geral de virutalização de plataformas, dá pra nomear algumas categorias, de forma simplificada, e alguns softwares virtualizadores, que a implementam.

No primeiro modelo, nativo, encaixam-se nomes como VMware ESX Server, IBM System z Hypervisor, Microsoft Hyper-V, Xen, Citrix XenServer, Oracle VM Server, Parallels Server, Sun’s Logical Domains Hypervisor, e finalmente, o Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM), disponível nas distribuições empresariais de Linux. Todos esses softwares permitem a virtualização do sistema operacional hospedeiro, bem como o sistema operacional convidado, exigindo a modificação de seu núcleo.

Já no segundo modelo, hospedado, encaixam-se nomes como VMware Server, VMware Workstation, VMware Fusion, o projeto livre QEMU, Microsoft Virtual PC e Microsoft Virtual Server, Sun’s VirtualBox, Parallels Workstation e Parallels Desktop. Estes software virtualizam qualquer sistema opercional comum, sem a necessidade de sua modificação.

Virtualização e instâncias de sistemas operacionais

Especificamente, o Sun Solaris e o BSD, implementam um outro modelo de virtualização de sistema operacional.

O Sun Solaris (a partir de 2005) implementa Zones, definido como um abstração virtual do sistema operaciona, onde aplicações executam. Tais aplicações são protegidas e separadas umas das outras. Através de uma única instância principal do sistema operacional, pode-se gerencial diversas Zones (como instâncias do mesmo sistema).

O uso do gerenciamento de recursos da arquitetura em questão, faz com que uma Zone seja chamada de Container, criando o conceito de Solaris Containers. A maioria das pessoas utilizam  os dois termos, sem fazer distinção entre eles.

Existem dois tipos de Zones. As Zones nativas, criam instâncias do mesmo sistema operacional (Solaris), enquanto as Branded Zones, disponibilizam uma insfra estrutura virtual de hardware, para que seja possível criar instâncias de outros sistemas operacionais, como o Linux, por exemplo.

Da mesma maneira, existem os Jails (que vieram antes dos Containers, em 1990, criados a partir do FreeBSD). Jail implementa o mesmo sentido de abstração do sistema operacional, criando instâncias desse, fazendo com que haja muito mais flexibilidade do uso do sistema operacional, em um ambiente de produção.

Acredito que o uso de instâncias de sistema operacional, tenha tido como principal motivação, a flexibilidade de modelos de segurança que o *nix não conseguia prover, mas isso é um outro assunto.

Para terminar o post, volto a dizer que virtualização pode ser vista de diversas formas, e existem diversos modelos e ferramentas para implementar. Vão desde abstrações de hardware de entrada e saída, até abstrações do sistema operacional. O que vale realmente realmente, é estudar e medir as necessidades e as disponibilidades, para que seja feita a escolha certa.

O modelo de cloud computing se encaixa em virtualizações. É um tema recente, poderoso, mas com a escolha errada, pode se tornar extremamente perigoso.

Até a próxima!

Referências:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor

http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/ldoms/index.jsp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paravirtualization

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/br/library/l-hypervisor/index.html

http://blogs.technet.com/lpalma/archive/2008/10/01/paravirtualiza-o-emula-o-bare-metal.aspx

http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/adapters/pro1000gt/pro1000gt-overview.htm

In the ever leap-frogging world of desktop virtualization for the Mac, VMware has announced that it will make its next hop (I won’t venture to say who’s ahead at this juncture) by the end of October…or the 27th, if you go by its blog. So in just a few weeks, version 3 of Fusion will be available for mass consumption. Some of the announced features are as follows.

The big news, of course, is Snow Leopard optimization, where Fusion jumps onto the 64-bit bandwagon. This should bring some interesting performance boosts to those who use virtualized environments heavily. As a regular Windows VM user (by necessity) I’m really looking forward to this!

If, on the other hand, you’re a Windows user stuck in a Macintosh machine, you’ll be glad to know that Fusion 3 is the first to support Windows Aero and Flip 3D features found in Windows 7. From my perspective, this is cool, but when I run Windows in a VM, it’s bare bones, and just for the program or two that I require. But I’m sure this capability will make some people quite happy.

There is also greatly improved graphics support. I’m not much of a PC gamer, and as such don’t follow these terms very much, so straight from the release, VMware Fusion 3 is the “first to support DirectX 9 Shader Model 3.0 3D graphics and now adds support for OpenGL 2.1.” Sounds neat.

Presumably taking a cue from the competition, there’s “Switching Made Easy,” so that you can now migrate to OS X by converting your Windows installation to a VMware Fusion image, easier than ever before. (My guess is that someone will make it even easier if we wait a few more months. Rib-bit.)

And there are other optimizations, too, along with a nicely redesigned way of accessing the Windows Start menu without having need for the Task bar onscreen.

All in all, it sounds like a set of updates to an already solid virtualization platform. If you’re in the market for such a product, version 3 of Fusion will cost $79.99. If you’re a current paid user, an upgrade will set you back $39.99. I use both Parallels and Fusion (at work and home, respectively) and like both well enough. I’ve been using the Parallels 5 beta, and it’s pretty nice. But while I haven’t had the chance to toy with Fusion 3 yet, I’m quite intrigued, and will be getting the upgrade. If you’ve already invested in one camp or the other, I can’t say (yet) if jumping ship for the other would be a worthwhile investment. Check back later after I’ve got my hands on the updates, as I’ll try to put some perspective to this topic.

So….. when I installed Snow Leopard my VMWare Boot Camp partition became inaccessible from VMWare!!! Booo! It turns out if you get the FREE upgrade from VMWare Fusion 1 to 2 the issues are cleared up. I am now back into my Windows partition.

VMWare Fusion 2 seems to have a bunch of improvements which are definitely worth checking out. I just enabled the improved DirectX 9.0 3d graphics and for the first time, enabled a shared folder that I will use as a bridge between the two OSes when needed.

Odpowiedź 129 zł za upgrade lub odpowiednio więcej za Mac Box Set/wersję rodzinną wcale nie wyczerpuje tematu. Zanim jeszcze otrzymałem pudełko z upgrade, wiedziałem, że muszę przygotować $19.95 na aktualizację 1Password (w promocji!). Kilka dni temu został zapowiedziany nowy VMware Fusion; za aktualizację do wersji 64-bitowej, zoptymalizowanej dla Snow Leopard trzeba zapłacić $39.99. Wczoraj pokazał się nowy CosmoPod – kosztował mnie niewiele, bo tylko €3.90 za aktualizację, ale i to trzeba uwzględnić. Podsumowując: oprócz 129 zł na pudełko z upgrade Snow Leo, już wiem o wydatkach rzędu 200 zł na aktualizację aplikacji, a to zapewne nie koniec…

VMware are rivals of Parallel when itcomesto providing virtualisation software forrunning other OSes on your Mac. I tried out their early beta of Fusion but ended uppreferring Parallels offering. Thislatest update is no doubtan attempt to compete with Parallels Desktop verison 4.

Get the Best of Both Mac and PC Worlds
Seamlessly run your favorite Windows applications and devices, on any Intel-based Mac. Built from the ground up for the Mac, VMware Fusion is the easiest way to switch to Mac—letting you bring all of your Windows applications with you, making the most of your Windows software investment, while providing the perfect safety blanket for the switch.

Break Down the Walls Between Windows and Mac
With the powerful Unity feature, VMware Fusion seamlessly integrates your Windows applications with your Mac. Instantly launch Windows applications from any Mac file, the Dock, and more. Minimize Windows applications to the Dock and even quickly switch between Windows and Mac applications with Exposé.

Safest Way to Run Windows on the Mac
VMware Fusion makes your Windows-on-Mac experience the safest possible with a suite of features to keep Windows safe and sound. From automated, timed snapshots, to embedded antivirus and antispyware software, VMware Fusion keeps Windows on your Mac sparkling.

Mac-like and User Friendly
Built from the ground up for Mac users, with an obsessive eye towards being a “good Mac citizen” VMware Fusion is the easiest, most Mac-friendly way to run Windows on the Mac. A Mac-first user interface ensures that users get the features they expect, like customizable tool bars, searchable Apple help, Boot Camp support, dock notification integration, and more.

Power to Burn
Based on the most advanced virtualization engine the world has ever known, the result of more than a decade of development, VMware Fusion brings all the power of VMware’s enterprise-proven technology to the Mac.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related articles by Zemanta

• VMware Fusion 3 supercharged for Snow Leopard (tuaw.com)
• VMWare Fusion 2.06 hits the streets (tuaw.com)
• VMware Fusion 2.0.5 update squashes bugs, adds 10.6 support (tuaw.com)
• Windows Drains MacBook’s Battery; Who’s To Blame? (hardware.slashdot.org)
• NVIDIA Accelerates Conservation with These Come From Trees Stickers (thesecomefromtrees.blogspot.com)
• Parallels Switch to Mac Edition Transfers Windows Programs For You [Windows On Mac] (gizmodo.com)
• CrossOver Games 8 adds additional Windows game support (macworld.com)
• Improved VirtualBox 3.0 Runs Multiple Operating Systems Simultaneously (jkontherun.com)
• Fixing the Mac VMWare Fusion Windows XP Local printer issue (librarywebhead.blogspot.com)

Apple forbid to install mac os x “client” to install to any virtualization software. You can install only max os x server version.

To install it you need to pretend that “client”  is “server”

1. create iso
2. mount it and create file which pretend that client is “server”
3. touch “/Volumes/Mac OS X Install DVD/System/Library/CoreServices/ServerVersion.plist”
4. install
5. it will reboot machine and tries to start from already installed instance – but you will get error that it is not “server” version
6. you have to boot again and start installation from iso
7. after 2 “yes” clicks you can run terminal from utilities from top menu and run command
8. touch “/Volumes/Macintosh HD/System/Library/CoreServices/ServerVersion.plist”
9. reboot
10. you are done

Of course this is breaking apple/vmware linceses.

more info can be found here.

Was it really only a little over three years ago that the formerly fanciful notion of being able to run Windows apps within OS X without major limitations became reality? Today, archrivals Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion continue to undergo aggressive upgrades aimed at making the virtualization of Windows on Macs even more powerful, seamless, and simple. And today, VMware is announcing that it’s taking preorders for VMware Fusion 3, which will ship on October 27th.

I haven’t had any hands-on time with the new version yet, but the list of features that VMware has revealed leaves me anxious to get my mitts on it:

• Snow Leopard support, including a 64-bit engine and support for OS X’s 64-bit kernel.
• Full support for Windows 7, including the Aero interface and Flip 3D task switching and better support for DirectX and OpenGL graphics.
• A migration utility that lets you import a real PC’s Windows installation over the network. (Parallels introduced something similar in August, but did so in a separate version of the product that does the job over a bundled USB cable.)
• A menu for your Windows apps that appears on the right-hand side of OS X’s Menu Bar, reducing or eliminating the need to use Windows’ Start menu and Taskbar.
• A more efficient engine that’s less taxing on a Mac’s CPU, can run Windows well in 1GB of RAM, and reduces battery drain, according to VMware. I’m especially happy about that last point–my biggest beef with both Fusion and Parallels is the dramatically reduced battery life I get when they’re running. (Still to be determined: How this version’s speed compares to Parallels–the Parallels folks understandably like to tout this MacTech story that shows their product outperforming Fusion 2 in most tests.)

In all, VMware says that Fusion 3 has more than fifty new features. It’ll cost $79.99 for new users; an upgrade version will be $39.99. A few screens supplied by VMware after the jump.

Windows 7 Flip 3D running in a window within OS X:

The new menu for Windows apps, complete with Spotlight-like searching of your virtual Windows machine:

The Migration Assistant:

Escribir a estas alturas de la vida una miniguía introductoria al mundo Mac para usuarios que vengan de Windows puede carecer de sentido por dos razones bastantes obvias: la primera es la cantidad de información existente al respecto en la red y la segunda es la simpleza y sencillez del sistema operativo Mac OS X, que permite que un usuario sin experiencia encuentre las cuatro cosas básicas para funcionar de forma intuitiva. Ese es el gran acierto de este sistema operativo desde el punto de vista del usuario: que no tienes que hacer nada, hasta tal punto que uno se dedica a encender el ordenador (impresionante lo poco que tarda en arrancar y cerrarse el sistema) y a realizar las rutinas de todos los días como un autómata, ya que apenas hay que pensar.

Digamos que se podría hacer una analogía entre perros y gatos, y Windows y Mac. Hay quien dice que los perros tienen muy clarito quién es su amo y que están aquí para servirnos, mientras que con los gatos parece que es al revés: para ellos su dueño es el sirviente y ellos los amos puesto que hacen lo que les sale de los bigotes todo el santo día y te buscan sólo para que les llenes el comedero de pienso, les eches agua en su bebedero o les abras la puerta para que se hagan su ruta turística por la casa. Pues con Windows y Mac Os ocurre lo mismo. Mientras que con Windows uno se pasa todo el día configurando y desconfigurando, instalando y desistalando y en definitiva peleándose con las entrañas del ordenador, con un Mac todo eso es invisible al usuario, es decir, el ordenador pasa a ser una herramienta útil para un determinado fin. Con Windows nosotros tenemos que ser la herramienta que mantenga constantemente saneado el equipo. Dicho esto y habiendo utilizado una analogía bastante clara de mi forma de ver las cosas como usuario de ambas plataformas, paso a dar unas breves instrucciones para esos nuevos usuarios que aún anden perdidos en el mundo del Leopard (Mac Os 10.5):

Lo primero es percatarse de que el escritorio está vacío, ni iconos ni nada. ¿qué hago para comenzar a trabajar? bajar el punterito de mi ratón a la parte inferior de la pantalla para que aparezca una barra de herramientas (copiada por otros sistemas hasta la saciedad) conocida como Dock donde tendremos acceso a las aplicaciones más comunes. Se puede tener esa barra de herramientas siempre visible o incluso en los laterales o parte superior de la pantalla. Con seleccionar una aplicación estaríamos funcionando. En la parte superior de la pantalla existe una barra de menús fija para acceder al Finder, que es a Mac lo que el explorador de carpetas a Windows, luego si queremos echar un vistazo por los directorios del equipo ya sabemos donde hacerlo. También podemos acceder al Finder a través del Dock ya que es el icono de la carita sonriente o pulsando las teclas (cmd+n). Una vez que ejecutamos una aplicación y aparece su icono en el Dock, podemos mediante el menú contextual desplegado con el botón derecho del ratón sobre el icono de la aplicación, hacer que ésta se quede de forma permanente en el dock como acceso directo.

Dicho esto, toda aplicación que abramos tendrá la barra de herramientas con las opciones principales en la parte superior de la pantalla, así que no os volváis locos buscando en la propia ventana de la aplicación (confieso que al principio me costó darme cuenta de eso). Siempre tendremos una aplicación activa, cuyos menús se presentan en esa barra. Cuando cambiamos de aplicación, los menús de la barra cambian a los de la nueva aplicación activa. Ya no tenemos los menús de cada programa en la propia ventana del programa como en Windows. Para saber qué programa está activo baste mirar su nombre en la barra de menús (arriba a la izquierda)

Las ventanas no tienen las opciones de minimizar, maximizar y cerrar como en Windows, sino las de Maximizar/Minimizar en el mismo botón (verde), minimizar en el dock (amarillo). Esto también se consigue haciendo doble click en la parte superior de la ventana) y cerrar (rojo).

Casi todas las cosas que en Windows se hacían con la tecla ctrl (por ejemplo copiar: ctrl+c) ahora se hacen con la tecla cmd (o la de la manzanita).

En la esquina superior derecha tenemos una lupa (spotlight) que nos permitirá encontrar cualquier documento o aplicación.

Ya está, ya sabemos en qué entorno de trabajo nos estamos moviendo. Pero si ahora quiero cambiar configuraciones del sistema (algo que se hará bastantes menos veces que cuando se trabaja con Windows) el hermano mayor del panel de control de Windows es la aplicación Preferencias del sistema (en la carpeta Aplicaciones del Finder o suele estar directamente en el Dock), en donde podremos manejar las opciones más comunes. Desde cosas sencillas como cambiar el fondo del escritorio o la velocidad del ratón, a cosas más avanzadas como la configuración de red. Éste es digamos el centro de operaciones, el primer programa con el que hay que familiarizarse para empezar a conocer nuestro Mac.

Para los que usaban con frecuencia el Administrador de tareas en Windows (ctrl+alt+supr) para obtener información sobre los procesos y programas que se estuviesen ejecutando, comprobar el uso de la CPU, así como terminar programas y finalizar procesos, el equivalente en Mac para eso es el Monitor de actividad que se encuentra en la carpeta de Aplicaciones/Utilidades. Monitoriza y presenta estadísticas de los procesos que están ejecutándose en el sistema. En la misma carpeta (Utilidades) también tenemos la Utilidad de discos, que es la herramienta apropiada para hacer todo tipo de operaciones de mantenimiento en nuestros discos duros, desde verificar y reparar permisos hasta crear y administrar particiones. También desde aquí, podemos crear imágenes de disco, convertirlas a otro formato, e incluso grabar una imágen de disco en un CD o DVD.

Cómo se puede observar la carpeta Utilidades puede ser bastante importante ya que como su nombre indica, contiene programas de gran utilidad para controlar el sistema. El último que quería comentar es el Terminal, que sería parecido al Ms DOS de Windows (en windows: Inicio/ejecutar: cmd). OS X es un sistema operativo basado en UNIX. Si lo tuyo es el command prompt e introducir comandos, puedes hacerlo desde aquí. Para un usuario digamos ‘normal’, no es necesario en absoluto saber manejar esto, pero si eres un usuario avanzado y quieres usar comandos, herramientas y lenguajes de script de UNIX, Terminal es el programa apropiado para eso. Por complicado que parezca, la comunicación mediante comandos con una computadora siempre será más precisa y potente que mediante interfaz gráfica.

Como hoy en día no se hace nada con internet los Mac vienen con el navegador Safari instalado y la verdad es que va bastante bien. No obstante yo también tengo descargados el OPERA y el Firefox debido a su indudable calidad. Con Mac el que más uso es el Safari y de vez en cuando el Firefox (que es el que siempre uso con windows) porque este último tiene un potencial enorme con la gran cantidad de plugins disponibles para él. No obstante el más rápido, eficiente y con menos fallos dicen que es el Opera, aunque lo he probado muy poquito. Se puede instalar cualquiera de ellos.

Para navegar por nuestro Mac hay que tener en cuenta si se dispone del Mighty Mouse, ratón con 4 botones configurables (Preferencias del sistema/ratón y teclado). Pero para explotar el enorme potencial de Leopard para navegar hay que conocer qué es el Exposé y qué el Spaces.

Con el Exposé (Preferencias del sistema) se puede dar funcionalidad a cada esquina de la pantalla y acercando el ratón a dicha esquina se haría una cosa diferente, como ver todas las pantallas que hay, acceder al spaces, dejar libre el escritorio, etc.

El Spaces lo que no permite es multiplicar el número de escritorios que tengamos disponibles. También se puede acceder a través del ratón (por ejemplo en mi caso he configurado pulsar el botón central para que así ocurra), con la tecla de función F8 o incluso a través del Exposé (cuando acerco el puntero a mi esquina inferior derecha me aparecen todos los escritorios disponibles (uso 4). Con la combinación de Exposé, ratón y Spaces ganamos gran eficiencia en nuestra navegación y trabajo diarios.

El concepto de instalar y desinstalar programas en Mac es diferente y muy sencillo. Todos los programas se guardan en la carpeta Aplicaciones, accesible desde cualquier ventana del Finder. No es necesario rebuscar en el disco duro para saber los programas que tenemos o dónde se guardan. Dentro de la carpeta, podemos encontrar fácilmente cualquier aplicación simplemente comenzando a teclear su nombre. La forma de instalación más habitual es arrastrando los programas a la carpeta Aplicaciones sin más, aunque algunos programas vienen en un paquete con instalador. Para desinstalar un programa basta con arrastrar el icono a la papelera pero si queremos eliminar algún archivo de preferencias que haya quedado en alguna parte del sistema operativo existe una aplicación AppZapper que desinstala estos archivos de preferencias con sólo arrastrar el programa sobre el AppZapper. No obstante, a diferencia de Windows, no notaremos un funcionamiento erróneo ni lento por tener estos archivos por ahí.

Para terminar me gustaría hablar de una aplicación que me permitirá tener una máquina virtual con cualquier sistema operativo corriendo bajo Leopard: Vmware Fusion. Un sistema virtual por software es un programa que simula un sistema físico (un ordenador, un hardware) con unas características de hardware determinadas. Cuando se ejecuta el programa (simulador), proporciona un ambiente de ejecución similar a todos los efectos a un ordenador físico (excepto en el puro acceso físico al hardware simulado), con CPU (puede ser más de una), BIOS, tarjeta gráfica, memoria RAM, tarjeta de red, sistema de sonido, conexión USB, disco duro (pueden ser más de uno), etc. En definitiva, al arrancar la máquina virtual con Windows es como si tuviese el windows instalado en el ordenador, con lo que podría instalar y ejecutar aplicaciones específicas de otros sistemas operativos y ejecutarlas en mi Mac arrancando la máquina virtual.

Aquí dejo una guía con programas útiles para Mac.

VMWare fusion and Snow leopard – How did I improve the boot time !!

Monday, September 21, 2009

After a couple of weeks of using Snow leopard, I found that my system boot times were getting significantly longer. Since I use the verbose mode of booting, I could see that a lot of VMWare related activities were happening alongwith my naive Sprint network load sequences.

As any advance user would do, I started removing boot entries from my /Library/LaunchAgents and /Library/LaunchDaemons. And ofcorse not to forget changing my boot kernel to LP64 on the boot.plist.

I cleared everything from the LaunchAgents and kept only the com.vmware.launchd.vmware.plist on the LaunchDaemons.Well anyway, so far so good. I reboot.

Not surprisingly the boot time came down – yeah 2 seconds it did, 55 to 53. Am I pleased or what !! I was used to sub-40 load times on Leopard. If anything SL was supposed to beat it and not the other way round.

Without much choice, I started playing around with the com.vmware.launchd.vmware.plist file. It contained a reference to /Library/Application Support/VMware Fusion/boot.sh with an argument –start.

Before I played around with the boot.sh I wanted to time trial with and without the file in the LaunchDaemons folder.

Look at the times;

Without the file – 32 seconds (Removed the file and put in my desktop)

With the file – 32 seconds (From desktop back to the LaunchDaemons folder).

Haha … I thought. Am I good or what.

Not really. The boot sequence displayed a few error messages in the beginning that I missed to see So much for my greatness !!
Anyway, now that my boot times were back to a reasonable limit, I started paying more attention to the initial few messages in the boot sequence. I noticed that the file permission on the vmware plist was messed up.

Dont blame me for this. It simply happens when you use the Mac and Windows together.

OK. So now I think well who cares for the permission. My mac boots and everything is fine. I launch VMWare fusion and I’m greeted with three error messages. Really they could have stopped at one. But anyway, click OK three times and my VM wont load.

I’m in the wtf mode right now. I dont want to reinstall fusion – please. I cannot wait for 50 seconds for my mac to boot up. Once I knew the contents of the plist file I figured out the solution in less than a minute.

Here’s the solution: VMware fusion uses the boot.sh to load all the drivers and adapters it needs for the VM to function properly. Instead of using a plist at startup I thought why not launch it when I need it.

I tried this on the terminal.

/Library/Application \Support/VMware \Fusion/boot.sh

voila. I saw the –restart option.

I for one know that boot.sh type scripts need a sudo level privilege.

So next time I issue

sudo /Library/Application \Support/VMware \Fusion/boot.sh –restart

Less than a second, my VM drivers are up and running. Now I launch fusion again and my VM loads without a problem.

With all this done, why would I want to repair the file permission and go back to sub-50 boot times when I can run this command (on a need-to-use basis) and have a sub-30 boot time.

To this day I use the latter option and I love it.