# Parallels or VMWare?



## silentsim (Apr 15, 2006)

Ah yes, another one of these.

What are people currently using and why??

Reason why i post this over past threads is there have been updates to both these apps quite frequently!

Edit: For Winblows of course


----------



## mpuk (May 24, 2005)

I'm using Parallels because I didn't know of VMware originally, but then again; I have nothing to compain about with Parallels anyway...so its got my vote.


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

I use Parallels because it has better USB support. VMWare is faster though. So I guess it depends on what you use it for.


----------



## mejag (Mar 16, 2003)

I use VMware for the increased USB support; I'm able to dedicate devices to the windows platform. I use windows based photography programs for controlling camera, and printing. Parellels was unable to do what I needed. I also like the seemless Windoze install. I enjoy the speed of VMware over Parellels -parellels seemed very slugish when running large photo documents. Mind you, I haven't used parellels recently so I may be out of date. 

I use and love VMware, highly recommended!


----------



## Fox (Oct 4, 2002)

I use both (one on an iMac, the other on a mini) and I find both excellent in running Windows xp or 2000 Professional. Both have minor issues in running the various installations of Linux, but I have managed all right with these as well (with a lot more tweaking required). I would recommend either and I wouldn't recommend one over the other unless you can get one more cheaply. But one thing you can do to help you decide is download and try the demos, which are fully functional for 30 days.


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

mejag said:


> I use VMware for the increased USB support; I'm able to dedicate devices to the windows platform. I use windows based photography programs for controlling camera, and printing. Parellels was unable to do what I needed. I also like the seemless Windoze install. I enjoy the speed of VMware over Parellels -parellels seemed very slugish when running large photo documents. Mind you, I haven't used parellels recently so I may be out of date.
> 
> I use and love VMware, highly recommended!


I might have missed something, but what increased USB support? We tested 1.1.1 and found it's support for many USB devices lacking (although to be fair, some stuff that previously didn't work now do. But not to the degree that we were hoping). Also, you can dedicate USB devices to the Windows platform in Parallels by doing the following:

1. Shut down your Virtual Machine.
2. Click on the "Edit" menu and choose "Virtual Machine"
3. Highlight the "USB Controller" and set the "Connection Options" to "Connect to Guest OS"
4. Click OK
5. Restart your virtual machine. 

That works for me. This is all on version 3.0 build 5584, but I done this as far back as build 5160.


----------



## ChilBear (Mar 20, 2005)

I work in Parallels so I can work from home on my office computer (PC). I can use Mac to check email at work and work in XP without a conflict in the use of Ports. I know you think I should do everything off the same computer but I am a rebel with two screens - Mac on one and PC on the other.

Being in Graphics I can also switch files from one OS to the other to get them to function/open correctly. Sometime WinBloze is better and most time the Mac is the correct platform. It saves real estate - one machine two OS.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

I found Parallels support to be lacking ... OK, non-existent.

They have user forums and FAQs but if your issue is not solved explicitly there, you're out of luck. They never reply to support requests. Ever.

It was to the point where I've never successfully installed it ... can't use Virtual PC images due to an issue that may or may not be significant, but you just can't get any answer from them on it.

My long-standing rule on software is it should do what I want, it should be generally reliable and if I have issues, I should be able to talk to someone who took my money and have them help me fix it. A failure on any of those is an automatic "see ya" with no looking back and no regrets. So, goodbye Parallels for me.


----------



## Bajan (Apr 11, 2004)

Used both since the very beginning. Since 1.1 VMWare gets my vote as it just "feels" better. I like the fact that I can use 2 cores on my Mac Pro for a VM. Plus the fact that I've been using it for years and years when it was just available for Linux.


----------



## TheChemist (Jan 14, 2008)

I have tried both, and settled with parallels (for the time being) based on:

1) Accessing the shared folder (between OSX and the VM) is a lot faster in parallels.

2) Parallels Compressor


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

vmWare. I run flash and dreamweaver pretty hard and it's smooth as butter.

The high fat kind.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

groovetube said:


> vmWare. I run flash and dreamweaver pretty hard and it's smooth as butter.
> 
> The high fat kind.


Ummmm, butter ...

(snaps out of it) Um, while I'm perfectly okay with you running flash and dreamweaver in VMWare, the Mac version is the same (or better?) isn't it? Any reason why you're doing it this way?


----------



## logcomet (Jun 11, 2004)

I use VMware with Autocad 2007. I found it was faster then Parallels. It also 'felt' more stable.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I use Parallels with no issues whatsoever.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

chas_m said:


> Ummmm, butter ...
> 
> (snaps out of it) Um, while I'm perfectly okay with you running flash and dreamweaver in VMWare, the Mac version is the same (or better?) isn't it? Any reason why you're doing it this way?



Web development should happen with both platforms open. If not, you're going to cause yourself headaches.

I use the pc version of flash in cases where I have lots of database filled text fields and the mac version will not export with kerning tables. Sometimes this is ok, but often when aesthetics is a concern, kerning is required. That's one example.

While I tend to use the mac version of flash most of the time because obviously I prefer it, I have to do 'peecee' too.

I tried paralells, and vmWare was clearly the faster/smoother for this.


----------



## jimwww (May 11, 2008)

Ok.. great for you guys as you have intel chips inside.. but I have a Powermac and need Virtual PC - has anyone used it - know where I should get it from - thanks (need to run a few pc programs)

By the way (added info) 
I found iEmulator on the web and I am going to give that a try.


----------



## Quicksilver G4 (Jan 29, 2008)

Personally, I wouldn't care about which one. Just depends on which one you could get cheaper.

I would recommend VMWare though, as an additional note. But, still I think that the cheaper one will although might be slower, the cost will offset it.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Before you try either try Sun Solaris VirtualBox. The program is *free* and it may do everything you want. The best link I have for it is this. It is new software so I suspect it will have a few problems. But being backed buy Sun it will be really good in the long run. You may have to be a bit of a hacker to getting going too...

I haven't tried VirtualBox as I have VMWare's Fusion Beta 3.0 on my machine. When the beta dies I'll try VirtualBox. VMWare Fusion 3.0 can use both processors on a dual core machine; something I really like.

There are also some free virtual machines for the Mac to run Windows OS. Check out Q emulator 0.9.0a89. There may be others. There is one other package that I've heard about, but their site is down right now so I can't confirm anything.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

jimwww said:


> but I have a Powermac and need Virtual PC - has anyone used it


Been there - got the T-Shirt. VirtualPC was a pretty good program for making Windoze run so incredibly slow, and anything beyond the most basic will end up driving you insane. The versions before the Evil Empire bought it had issues, but at least you could run whatever Windoze you wanted. Once M$ bought it, you have to buy a different version for every different version of Windoze. And I mean slow - like five minutes for it to start up, and then the audio will end up brain damaged, and half the programs will crash and go on fire, and the viruses and trojans can't even run half decently.

Really, if you need to run Windoze, just buy a cheap Windoze box of some kind - it will be a much better experience than VirtualPC. Old Windoze boxes are very cheap these days. And if you need to run Fi$ta, well, I won't even go there...


----------



## ruffdeezy (Mar 17, 2008)

should I install shaw secure or some other anti virus program within windows through vmware?


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Get AVG free anti-virus software.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> Really, if you need to run Windoze, just buy a cheap Windoze box of some kind - it will be a much better experience than VirtualPC. Old Windoze boxes are very cheap these days. And if you need to run Fi$ta, well, I won't even go there...


I agree, I picked up a an old dell P4 2.6 for $99 bucks, I didn't want to contaminate my Mac, it's now my file server and I run Windoze software on it through *Remote Desktop*.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jeepguy said:


> I agree, I picked up a an old dell P4 2.6 for $99 bucks, I didn't want to contaminate my Mac, it's now my file server and I run Windoze software on it through *Remote Desktop*.


Contaminate it with what exactly and how? Viruses? Malware? Trojans? Cross contamination is not possible. If you are referring to the OS itself, well that is just plain silly, if you are going to use Windows, then you are using it, does it matter on what box? Well actually, yes it does, and for me it is WAY superior to be on my Mac. Being in the position that I NEED to have a Windows installation somewhere (testing of developed web sites) I had a PC with a KVM, pain in the ass! Switching back and forth, moving files between computers, networking, etc.

When the MacIntels came out I ditched the PC and my G5, got a Mac Pro and run Windows in virtualization (have used both Parallels and VWware Fusion and Fusion is the winner by a slim margin for me) and have never looked back. I will never own another PC, not even a $99 one, don't need it, don't want it, they take up space, use up electricity, require additional hardware, (KVM, etc. or at least another keyboard and mouse, maybe a monitor depending on your setup).

As for the file server side of things, I use a NAS works great and is oh so small.

To each their own, but the "contamination" argument is a non-issue.


----------



## fozy (Jul 18, 2006)

I'm a VMware user myself. The latest update provides the added bonus of being able to have my virtual machines included in my Time Machine backup, so now my Mac, Windows, and Linux machines are all safe.


----------



## jimwww (May 11, 2008)

Well I don't have an intel.. and I am a little lost too.. I did pick up win 98 this morning (unopened pkg) and I only need to run a couple of PC programs. I am not sure what to run now. Virtual PC (which I cannot find on the net by the way - oh you can find the updates easy enough but not the actual program) or should I run IEmulator or this Sun thing now.. hmm..


----------



## sae (Feb 13, 2008)

bgw said:


> Before you try either try Sun Solaris VirtualBox.


I vote for VirtualBox as well. It's great if all you want to do is run a few programs but it does have some limitations:

1) Cannot drag and drop files between windows and OSX
2) No USB support
3) shared folders didn't work for me so I set up a standard network share so that I could access my OSX files.

I guess it should be mentioned that if you only want to run a program or two then should also check out crossover by codeweavers.


----------



## 850 (Apr 24, 2008)

I vote VMWare and heres why:

1) Extremely stable and fast!

2) Support for 64-bit OS's

Need I say more


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

850 said:


> I vote VMWare and heres why:
> 
> 1) Extremely stable and fast!
> 
> ...


Also Fusion is in Beta 2 right now with.....drum roll........ Multi monitor support! Parallels has another thing to play catch up with (dual core support and now multi monitors), they are soon going to be left behind by Fusion.


----------



## 850 (Apr 24, 2008)

screature said:


> Also Fusion is in Beta 2 right now with.....drum roll........ Multi monitor support! Parallels has another thing to play catch up with (dual core support and now multi monitors), they are soon going to be left behind by Fusion.


 !!!!! Thank you sir! I totally forgot that VMWare was at the 2.0 stage. Time to upgrade  FIrst things first I am going to give it a whirl!


----------



## jimwww (May 11, 2008)

i just boughtMICROSOFT VIRTUAL PC FOR MAC 6.1 (non intel) and will upgrade to 7.03 - with xp. I will get it next week.. see how it goes.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

jimwww said:


> i just boughtMICROSOFT VIRTUAL PC FOR MAC 6.1 (non intel) and will upgrade to 7.03 - with xp. I will get it next week.. see how it goes.


Good luck with that. The old adage about Virtual PC, that it was "slower than molasses" was a gross insult.

To molasses.

If you seriously want/need to run a win program or two on a Mac, I strongly suggest an Intel Mac. Night and day compared to trying to run VPC on a PPC platform computer.

Alternatively, beg/steal/borrow the cheapest PC you can find. It will run Windows faster than Virtual PC, guaranteed. Not faster than an Intel Mac, however.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

screature said:


> Contaminate it with what exactly and how? Viruses? Malware? Trojans? Cross contamination is not possible. If you are referring to the OS itself, well that is just plain silly, if you are going to use Windows, then you are using it, does it matter on what box? Well actually, yes it does, and for me it is WAY superior to be on my Mac. Being in the position that I NEED to have a Windows installation somewhere (testing of developed web sites) I had a PC with a KVM, pain in the ass! Switching back and forth, moving files between computers, networking, etc.
> 
> When the MacIntels came out I ditched the PC and my G5, got a Mac Pro and run Windows in virtualization (have used both Parallels and VWware Fusion and Fusion is the winner by a slim margin for me) and have never looked back. I will never own another PC, not even a $99 one, don't need it, don't want it, they take up space, use up electricity, require additional hardware, (KVM, etc. or at least another keyboard and mouse, maybe a monitor depending on your setup).
> 
> ...


by contaminate I mean I don't want to give up any of my hardrive space to XP on my new iMac. It came with a keyboard and mouse, the monitor I had laying around. it's mainly a file/media server. I have a NAS as well, but I'm using the cd-rom to convert my CD collection right now (2500 cd's), when I'm done I may get rid of it, and buy a 2nd NAS with 2 bays in it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jeepguy said:


> by contaminate I mean I don't want to give up any of my hardrive space to XP on my new iMac. It came with a keyboard and mouse, the monitor I had laying around. it's mainly a file/media server. I have a NAS as well, but I'm using the cd-rom to convert my CD collection right now (2500 cd's), when I'm done I may get rid of it, and buy a 2nd NAS with 2 bays in it.


Gottcha . The other thing you can do is put your virtual Windows drive on an external drive, preferably FW800 for performance sake, and then the only thing Windows related on your iMac would be the install of Parallels or VWware Fusion which are very light indeed.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> Contaminate it with what exactly and how? Viruses? Malware? Trojans? Cross contamination is not possible.


Entirely incorrect... Sure, a Windoze virus can not "infect" OSX - but the appropriate Windoze malware can nuke your entire hard drive by overwriting the partition table, and performing a format of the drive. So even in a virtualized space, one must be aware of the various security threats that Windoze represents.

In this day and age, old Windoze machines are so inexpensive that it barely makes sense to purchase expensive software, unless space is a constraint. Of course, there is nothign "wrong" with virtualizing software, or Boot Camp - but I wouldn't waste much money in buying them. For that, I think about how expensive a product like VirtualPC was, in comparison to the $75 I spent on a dedicated machine (that I ended up trading a year later for an assortment of hardware bits for my Macs).


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> Entirely incorrect... Sure, a Windoze virus can not "infect" OSX - but the appropriate Windoze malware can nuke your entire hard drive by overwriting the partition table, and performing a format of the drive. So even in a virtualized space, one must be aware of the various security threats that Windoze represents.
> 
> In this day and age, old Windoze machines are so inexpensive that it barely makes sense to purchase expensive software, unless space is a constraint. Of course, there is nothign "wrong" with virtualizing software, or Boot Camp - but I wouldn't waste much money in buying them. For that, I think about how expensive a product like VirtualPC was, in comparison to the $75 I spent on a dedicated machine (that I ended up trading a year later for an assortment of hardware bits for my Macs).


Wrong. Windows in Parallels or VMware Fusion virtualization only exists in a self contained virtual drive, it does not have access to the partition table. The only drive it could format would be the virtual drive.


----------



## jimwww (May 11, 2008)

I got Virtual pc for 40 bucks.. gonna try it and since I only need to use it a couple times a month cheaper than a PC - but if it is lousy then I will have to get a cheap pc/laptop to get xp and use that.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> Wrong. Windows in Parallels or VMware Fusion virtualization only exists in a self contained virtual drive, it does not have access to the partition table. The only drive it could format would be the virtual drive.


Which would be valid if Windoze did not allow for low level calls to the hardware. A program can easily nuke a system, if it wanted to, because unlike a system like OSX, where the kernel is the only interface to the low level hardware - Windoze can and will run amock since most programs circumvent the Windoze kernel in order to gai nthe speed advantage of directly manipulating the hardware. Stack failures can also wreak havoc, and lead to a number of ways that viruses can sneak in the back door and do damage.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

jimwww said:


> I got Virtual pc for 40 bucks.. gonna try it and since I only need to use it a couple times a month cheaper than a PC - but if it is lousy then I will have to get a cheap pc/laptop to get xp and use that.


$40 is pretty cheap. Have you ever looked around for replacement software for the stuff you want to run under Windoze?


----------



## jimwww (May 11, 2008)

Dreamweaver and Swish is what I need to use.. Dreamweaver to buy for mac I would think is expensive - Swish is not made for mac at all. Lightwave 3d ver 9 is not cheap either.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> Which would be valid if Windoze did not allow for low level calls to the hardware. A program can easily nuke a system, if it wanted to, because unlike a system like OSX, where the kernel is the only interface to the low level hardware - Windoze can and will run amock since most programs circumvent the Windoze kernel in order to gai nthe speed advantage of directly manipulating the hardware. Stack failures can also wreak havoc, and lead to a number of ways that viruses can sneak in the back door and do damage.


Hmm, I will have to defer to you on this point until I do some homework. What do you think the real world chance of someone writing a malware program to specifically do as you indicate. It seems to me that because the allocations that are made to the hardware are filtered through the virtualization software there would have to be written into the malware some sort of code to account for this. As an example Parallels can only make us of one core in a processor (a hardware allocation) whereas Fusion can allocate resources to make use of two. 

Additionally the hardware that you are referring to that Windows can run amok with is only virtual hardware (at least as far as the hard drive is concerned) it has only been allocated the virtual drive. The rest of the drive would be as far as Windows is concerned a separate drive, so would not the author of the malware have to write his code in such a way as to account for this and somehow enable it propagate itself to another drive beyond the "system drive" ? How realistic is this?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ok, after having done my homework I am not "entirely incorrect" as EvanPitts, puts it. EvanPitts is correct, (thank you sir for correcting my error) malware could be written to gain access to the OSX startup disc from inside a virtualized Windows install. However, practically at this point in time there hasn't been and it would undoubtedly first be seen in the wild at an enterprise level, so the likelyhood of it happening anytime soon on *your* guest Windows virtual install are next to none.

However that hasn't stopped Norton from trying to see an opportunity in the making. See: Norton places big bet on Mac virtualization vulnerabilities

It sure is a big bet when malware capable of such an exploit hasn't even surfaced at the enterprise level yet where it is first likely to occur. Why? Money. The most likely use for such an attack would be for cybercriminals to gain control of virtualized servers for financial gain. So until we start to hear about those kinds of attacks in the wild, I think the home user need not be too worried.

Here are two interesting articles discussing the current state of threats to virtualization and what the future may hold:

'Virtual' Vulnerabilities About to Become Reality
Is Virtualization The Biggest Security Vulnerability In IT Today?

Certainly for the time being, there is no real threat to your Mac from malware from a virtualized install of Windows. But one should always be prudent as with any Windows install and have all the usual security suspects installed on your virtual Windows install. AVG makes a very good, free, antivirus and anti-spyware suite.

The biggest threat still remains, as it has and probably always will, to the guest Windows install itself.


----------



## zmttoxics (Oct 16, 2007)

I use VMWare Workstation, Server, and Player at work all the time so naturally I like Fusion because it works with the other VMWare products.

Thumps up for VMWare.


----------



## zmttoxics (Oct 16, 2007)

Also, I would like to point out that if money is an issue, there is Virtual Box. I have used it and it has many feature on par with Parallels and VMWare. It is not as fast or stable, but hey - it's free!

VirtualBox


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

screature said:


> Ok, after having done my homework I am not "entirely incorrect" as EvanPitts, puts it. EvanPitts is correct, (thank you sir for correcting my error) malware could be written to gain access to the OSX startup disc from inside a virtualized Windows install. However, practically at this point in time there hasn't been and it would undoubtedly first be seen in the wild at an enterprise level, so the likelyhood of it happening anytime soon on *your* guest Windows virtual install are next to none.
> 
> However that hasn't stopped Norton from trying to see an opportunity in the making. See: Norton places big bet on Mac virtualization vulnerabilities
> 
> ...



You could just disable the VM's ability to access your OSX environment. That way it's truly sandboxed.


----------



## matriculated (Jan 2, 2008)

zmttoxics said:


> Also, I would like to point out that if money is an issue, there is Virtual Box. I have used it and it has many feature on par with Parallels and VMWare. It is not as fast or stable, but hey - it's free!
> 
> VirtualBox


I'm trying this out again on my Mac and my Ubuntu box at home. It's working far better than it did a couple of months ago. If you install "Guest Additions" while in virtualized WindowsXP (and I assume Vista) you can access a VMWare Unity-like mode and it works pretty damn good. In fact it has full-screen, dynamic resolution resizing just like Fusion. If you don't need 3D support, I highly recommend people try this out before buying VMWare or Parallels!


----------



## zmttoxics (Oct 16, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> Entirely incorrect... Sure, a Windoze virus can not "infect" OSX - but the appropriate Windoze malware can nuke your entire hard drive by overwriting the partition table, and performing a format of the drive. So even in a virtualized space, one must be aware of the various security threats that Windoze represents.
> 
> In this day and age, old Windoze machines are so inexpensive that it barely makes sense to purchase expensive software, unless space is a constraint. Of course, there is nothign "wrong" with virtualizing software, or Boot Camp - but I wouldn't waste much money in buying them. For that, I think about how expensive a product like VirtualPC was, in comparison to the $75 I spent on a dedicated machine (that I ended up trading a year later for an assortment of hardware bits for my Macs).


You have to be the "smartest" forum user I have ever ignored. You are so quick to jump in and claim this is a terrible thing and that the "windoze" will infect you!

Ya, software works in the confines of its host (operating system) where the host is the interpreter for the hardware. However, with virtual machines a virtual set of hardware is presented for the vm to work on. So tell me Evan, how does the guest os wipe out the hard drive of the host os it doesn't even know it exists?

Drives in virtual machines are contained images. There is no way for the quest os to write out side the physical disk other then the network share trick for getting access to files on the host system. 

The same concept goes for Zones (read, Branded Zones / Containers) in Solaris. The Zones and virtual machines can NOT breach their domain. Zones and Virtual Machines are almost oblivious to the fact there is a host OS. Unless you give it some sort of method to talk to the host, it is not going to happen. Do not confuse these with Logical Domains (LDOMS) or Xen with the Hypervisor where they have real hardware access. 

Try running fdisk or disk manager in a windows vm, tell me how well it discovered your physical disks. You really need to read more into these things before jumping into threads and telling people they are "Entirely Incorrect" when you are the only one to fit the description.


----------



## sae (Feb 13, 2008)

matriculated said:


> If you don't need 3D support, I highly recommend people try [virtualbox] out before buying VMWare or Parallels!


I use virtualbox and I LOVE it. But there are more things you lose out on than just 3D support. These are some of the bigger ones:


USB support
shared folders
drag and drop items between host and guest


----------



## zmttoxics (Oct 16, 2007)

sae said:


> I use virtualbox and I LOVE it. But there are more things you lose out on than just 3D support. These are some of the bigger ones:
> 
> 
> USB support
> ...


There should be USB and shared folder support. You most likely have yet to install the Guest Additions / Tools. Much like the vmware tools, these are what enable the virtual machine those features.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> ...malware could be written to gain access to the OSX startup disc from inside a virtualized Windows install. However, practically at this point in time there hasn't been and it would undoubtedly first be seen in the wild at an enterprise level...


I do not think that one will come across malware that could manipulate OSX - but rather, the Windoze malware would just do an end run around the OS, even sandboxed, and directly manipulate the hardware - which could just simply wipe out OSX, or severely damage the file mount. As I had said previously, I do not think users need to be paranoid; but I do think people should exercise caution because if someone releases such malware, it will be both a major shock and very destructive. Or at least have the potential of...

The problem is not in the virtualization, or the software to do it - the problem is simply inherent in Windoze. And I think the biggest problem is not with a potential malware attack using exotic methods of circumventing the security associated with the virtualized environment - but with the fact that since Windoze allows for arbitrary code execution, some old junk virus will simply go to down and thrash the hard drive by writing directly to the drive controller.

So perhaps I overstated my case... But it all comes down to, if you have any kind of Windoze system, one must take regular precautions because there are over a million viruses floating around and waiting for a chance. And I think the problem will be less of actual viruses (since they are scanned for) and more of just some blatant trojan horse, possibly downloaded from a web site that says that you need a special "codec" to watch a video. Most Mac users would not be suckered in, but with all of the newbies... Well, precautions should be taken, even if the system is sandboxed with a virtualizer.


----------



## zmttoxics (Oct 16, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> I do not think that one will come across malware that could manipulate OSX - but rather, the Windoze malware would just do an end run around the OS, even sandboxed, and directly manipulate the hardware - which could just simply wipe out OSX, or severely damage the file mount. As I had said previously, I do not think users need to be paranoid; but I do think people should exercise caution because if someone releases such malware, it will be both a major shock and very destructive. Or at least have the potential of...
> 
> The problem is not in the virtualization, or the software to do it - the problem is simply inherent in Windoze. And I think the biggest problem is not with a potential malware attack using exotic methods of circumventing the security associated with the virtualized environment - but with the fact that since Windoze allows for arbitrary code execution, some old junk virus will simply go to down and thrash the hard drive by writing directly to the drive controller.
> 
> So perhaps I overstated my case... But it all comes down to, if you have any kind of Windoze system, one must take regular precautions because there are over a million viruses floating around and waiting for a chance. And I think the problem will be less of actual viruses (since they are scanned for) and more of just some blatant trojan horse, possibly downloaded from a web site that says that you need a special "codec" to watch a video. Most Mac users would not be suckered in, but with all of the newbies... Well, precautions should be taken, even if the system is sandboxed with a virtualizer.


You need to stop while you're ahead - sarcasm intended. As I previously stated, the virtual guest hardware has 0 access to physical hardware. There is no way any of what you said could work unless you provided it write access to a shared directory. Even then, it can not see the controller of the host hardware, all it sees is a network share.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

zmttoxics said:


> Ya, software works in the confines of its host (operating system) where the host is the interpreter for the hardware. However, with virtual machines a virtual set of hardware is presented for the vm to work on. So tell me Evan, how does the guest os wipe out the hard drive of the host os it doesn't even know it exists?


In the case of something like Boot Camp, there is no confine and the system is entirely open to whatever may happen.

In the case of VirtualPC, everything is translated by the interpreter from Intel coding to PPC coding; and since Windoze is not aware of and can not operate within the confines of Open Firmware; the BIOS has to be emulated, and thus, any access to hardware routines and ports is strictly controlled by VirtualPC.

But in the case of VMware and Parallels - there is no interpreter - the system within the virtualized environment has full access to the processes of the machine. Newer versions of Windoze (the versions that people are actually using) are fully EFI aware, and as the Intel Macs use EFI, the OS does interface, or at least can be made to interface, directly with the hardware. If the EFI layer had to be emulated by the virtualizer, the system would kind of creep along.

So if the software running within the virtualized sandbox behaves, that is, written as it is supposed to be written, and dependent upon the OS - then OSX is entirely safe, as far as we know and barring any kind of fatal flaw that could be used as a level to crack the system.

But if some malware makes an endrun around the OS, which is easy to do with Windoze, then it is just up to the imagination of what damage could be done. The problem is not with the virtualizers, or contained images or anything of the like - the problem is with Windoze itself, as it is not only easy to do an end run around the OS, M$ uses those end runs all of the time in order to increase the performance of their OS.



> Try running fdisk or disk manager in a windows vm, tell me how well it discovered your physical disks.


Of course fdisk will fail - because fdisk observes the rules of the OS, and does it's work through the BIOS/EFI calls that it makes. However, more aggressive forms of 'fdisk' are entirely possible - though perhaps not exploited - yet.


----------



## zmttoxics (Oct 16, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> In the case of something like Boot Camp, there is no confine and the system is entirely open to whatever may happen.
> 
> In the case of VirtualPC, everything is translated by the interpreter from Intel coding to PPC coding; and since Windoze is not aware of and can not operate within the confines of Open Firmware; the BIOS has to be emulated, and thus, any access to hardware routines and ports is strictly controlled by VirtualPC.
> 
> ...


I am so tired of this. You clearly have 0 clue of what you are talking about. I will list some points and then I am done with this thread as you clearly need to read a book on computer architecture.

1. EFI does NOT handle PPC code interpretation. The Extensible Firmware Interface was designed by Intel as they race to eliminate the BIOS. A c/c++ based firmware system allows for more control over a CMOS chip with an ASM driven bios (limited space is the primary issue). You can google Intel's 4 year old announcement on it. What you are thinking of is Rosetta, which has nothing do with the EFI firmware.

2. This thread is about VMWare and Parallels. These products do NOT run on PPC based macs. Even mentioning PPC is a waste of time. The whole reason for this is because Windows does not run on PPC based hardware (unless you count the firmware on the Xbox 360 as a windows based OS). 

3. Claiming possible design flaws is a personal fallacy of your own self. These systems are NOT designed like that, and as such with in the "rules" of the system as you put it, there is NO threat like that. Malware in a Windows virtual machine has only the access the virtual components, and not physical hardware. 

4. There are no such things as more advanced fdisk commands. There is only fdisk in Windows. The computer manager used to manage the disks in Windows is built around fdisk. As such, the Windows operating system can only work with hardware it sees, and it is only provided with virtual hardware. With said virtual hardware, there is no risk of Windows Malware being able to attack physical hardware as you suggested. Simply put, all it sees is the dummy disk image, and that's all it can write too (again, out side of the network share tricks).

Anything is possible for sure. My compilers teacher taught me that anything can be done in C, the answer is always yes. Hardware can be destroyed with software, no question.

Whats important is that you understand how this virtualized hardware actually works. The disk images, cdroms, sound cards, etc, are interpreted by the host software, and represented as devices inside the virtual machine. They are NOT passed as physical devices with direct access.

I am not done arguing with you Evan. It was necessary that you be straightened out before provided more misconceptions to the public. Please heed my warning and realize that you need to read on this stuff before challenging and ultimately insulting other people.


----------



## sae (Feb 13, 2008)

zmttoxics said:


> There should be USB and shared folder support. You most likely have yet to install the Guest Additions / Tools. Much like the vmware tools, these are what enable the virtual machine those features.



I have installed guest additions.


----------



## zmttoxics (Oct 16, 2007)

sae said:


> I have installed guest additions.


Hmm. Weird. Using the OpenSolaris edition with a Windows XP vm and the tools installed I was able to do the usb and shared folders just fine. I have yet to try the OSX version, I will have a look when I get home.


----------



## sae (Feb 13, 2008)

that must be why. I am using the OSX version.


----------



## zmttoxics (Oct 16, 2007)

sae said:


> that must be why. I am using the OSX version.


I almost forgot to check it. I installed it and was in the process of when setting up a win2k image when I ran into this. Here is where you need to set your usb and shared folder settings. Its in the properties of the actual image. This is with version 1.6.

I hope you get it working, feel free to send me a private message on the boards if you have anymore questions. I feel like I stole the thread a bit. For that I apologize.


----------



## jimwww (May 11, 2008)

I never got virtual pc to work and gave up - just bought a 1.8ghz pc for 100 dollars and solved a lot of my issues. Now I have both but use mac for the majority of my work.


----------

