Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
So Now I'm Running VMware Fusion 3 with my Windows 7 Boot Camp Volume...
#1
A few notes for those of you who are considering running Fusion 3 with a pre-existing Windows 7 Boot Camp volume...

Boot Camp = fast.

VMware = slow.

I've only got 2GB RAM in my MBP and that's probably a factor. I tried disabling 3D effects, reducing the memory to 768MB (so the Mac OS doesn't have to use so much VM) and setting it to use 2 CPUs and that did speed it up a bit so it's usable. 'Still pretty slow.

I also had a bit of a headache with Windows 7 activation after installing Fusion. The instructions at this link were invaluable:
http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsi...uage=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=1004917

It seems that the statement oft repeated in VMware guides that Windows must be activated twice is a bit misleading. In my experience, it must be activated twice after installing VMware and setting the Boot Camp volume to be the virtual disk.

In my case, Windows was already activated once from my original install. Since regular customers only get two activations with the original activation code, this left me one activation short. Luckily, Win7 has a "web activation" feature that lets you request an additional activation without having to work things out via telephone to India. Of course, this only works if you've configured Windows for your local network (as I did).

It's something that should be doable in a half hour. It took me all night. Plan accordingly.
Reply
#2
You must really have a strong need for Windows to go to all that bother.
Reply
#3
Amen to that. I run Vista on VMWare Fusion, and it's pretty slow. I'm sure it'd be better with Bootcamp, but I only have occasional needs - and need to switch back and forth - so rebooting with BC is not really an option.
Reply
#4
Yah, in a VM I wouldn't run Vista or Win7 unless I had a very good reason to do so. While 7 is slightly lighter on resource requirements and has fewer default services at startup, both of them have significantly higher overhead than XP.
Reply
#5
You really need more RAM in the MBP.....
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)