Virtual Windows 7 not the same thing

Emboldened by my success in getting Windows 7 to run on a Mac Mini using Boot Camp, I decided to press my luck. So Wednesday night, I took my Windows 7 beta disk home and set out to load it onto a virtual machine on my iMac.

Audio

Talking Windows 7
CNET News' Ina Fried discusses Windows 7 with CNET technology analyst Larry Magid
Download mp3 (1MB)

Having used Parallels successfully in the past to run Vista, I decided to give VMware's Fusion a try--my first experience with the product. Getting up and running was relatively straightforward, a process aided by the fact that VMware lets you enter information such as your password and product key at the outset--handling the rest of the install process by itself.

Although Windows 7 is not officially supported, VMware does have a helpful blog post up on how to install it.

What I found was that Windows 7 loaded on my iMac, even without having a full 1GB of memory to dedicate to the virtual machine. But although I got Windows 7 in body, I felt as if I had lost the spirit of the operating system. The two things I like the most about Windows 7--its zippiness and its graphics--were muted in the virtual experience.

After weeks of enjoying near-instant boot times, it was torture to find myself with the XP experience of having to turn on the machine, then go get a cup of coffee while it finished loading.

In fairness, I might have had a different experience, had I loaded it onto a particularly beefy Mac capable of devoting 1GB or more of memory just to the virtual machine. My iMac has just 1GB of memory total, so I gave half of that over to VMware, a choice that no doubt crimped the speed of both the Mac and the virtual machine.

Even still, I was able to do a lot on my virtual Windows 7 machine. I used it to watch the U-Haul police chase that I had missed. Not only was I able to check in on Facebook, I was able to play the Boggle-like Scramble game to which I am addicted (and the performance was acceptable).

I loaded Firefox on to the machine so that I could use CNET's blogging tool. Despite my fear of writing directly into the tool (not a good idea, even when not running a beta operating system in a virtual machine), it worked just fine.

Overall, I'd say Windows 7 on my iMac falls into the category of "I definitely can, but I'm not sure that I'd really want to." With Windows machines so cheap, I'm not sure that one isn't better off getting a Netbook and having it sit next to their Mac, if they really need to run a Windows app or two.

For more of my thoughts on Windows 7, check out the Editors' Office Hours segment I did earlier this week. I've included the video above.

Images: A virtual look at Windows 7

[wth31]

I've got Win7 Beta running on a 24" Silver iMac 2.4Gh with 4 GB using VMWare Fusion and allocating 1GB to the virtual machine. It runs like a champ! I've also have gotten way better performance from Vista in VMWare than I have had on PC's with it factory loaded.

VMWare seems to run all versions of Windows faster than Parallels which is why I dumped Parallels in favor of VMWare on all my Macs.

If you had more memory in your Mac, you'd be a much happier with your Windows 7 Experience.

[timber2005]

Is the CNET tool not IE compatable... or not IE8 compatable?
I'm also wondering if whatever Microsoft is using to help Netbooks (w/ reduced power, memory and hard drive space) could be used in a Virtual Environment to help keep Windows 7 on par, either host or guest.

[gsmiller88]

I didn't have much luck with it in VMWare either. Yeah, it installed, but it's painfully slow to boot up and once it finally does, attempting to launch any program causes it to freeze, so I just have to force-quit fusion. The "Aero" (I assume that's what they're still calling it) interface is also lost.

[fugawe]

I installed Win7 into VirtualBox on my MBP. It installed fine, but the networking didn't seem to work. It's probably user error, but I'm going to try Parallels next.

[rapier1]

I've been having issues with parallels. 1st it won't even load the 64 bit version for installation. The 32 bit version does load but after install parallel tools the VM hangs pretty quickly. I might be doing something wrong but I'm going to wait until Win7 is better supported on parallels.

[ckurowic]

@rapier1: get the newest version of Parallels, it works fine.

[moldor]

VirtualBox doesn't support Windows 7 networking - YET !!!

[dustatron]

windows 7 looks like a lot like the open source gui KDE 4. a little to much like KDE 4.
im a little surprised that no one on CNET is bring that up.

[goodspeed8701]

Exactly... just like Toyota camry 2007 model looks like BMW 5 series and no one is bringing that up. Les say they wont bring it up as they are not as stupid as you. Oh you look like a mad man and no one is bringing that up. Well its a fact that you are a rip off.

[Qtechbg]

If you are to compare KDE4 with Windows 7 GUI - you should switch off Aero first. Then you are on even grounds. Otherwise put Compiz+KDE4 side by side with Windows 7 and then pretend the latter is your Toyota.
And besides Linux has a 6m cycle, while Windows has 24m at best. Guess which camp will get more visual goodies sooner than later...

[eadeguzman]

I'm sure about how KDE's "looks" compare with Windows 7, but the "feel" on Win7 is definitely (response to clicks moving windows around, etc.)

Most (can't say all because I haven't tried all) Linux GUI's are a bit clunky to me (not in the same league as any Windows flavor or OSX).

[FutureGuy]

Really? You mean both are GUIs and respond to mouse clicks?

[calpundit]

Given what memory goes for these days, I would think that this would be the more cost-effective choice. I can't imagine that VMWare wouldn't run Windows 7 as it should with its full allotment of 1G or more. Memory upgrades are easy in an iMac and $50 for 4G of RAM seems a whole lot less expensive even than a $500 netbook.

[Seaspray0]

I agree. 512 MB is the minimum requirement, and tossing that into a VM sure didn't help. Had Ina had 2 GB on the computer (which is common these days), the results would not have been the same. I've brought VM's to their knees using only the minimum memory.

[simonsonjh]

W7 runs fine in VirtualBox.

[vamman]

Use the right hardware for the OS? ***?

And to the commentor about KDE4. KDE4.x is crap theres no comparison.

[tm_anon]

Well, you're right about one thing. There's no comparison between KDE 4.x and Windows 7. KDE 4.x was first and still a better choice. You'd thing MS would've at least tried to one-up the interfase before using it.

[mattflaschen]

I'm really not sure how any of this post is news, or even remotely interesting. You've "discovered" that unsupported operating systems are not supported as well as supported systems by VMWare Fusion (obviously this is true for other virtual machines too). You've also realized that devoting less than the minimum required memory harms performance (which is also true for every VM, as well as without one).

[rodmacpherson]

Why is it news that Windows load times suck on a machine that doesn't meet the minimum system requirements? ...especially with RAM, it has always been important to have the minimum, and in most cases double or triple the stated minimum. (for example, XP says you can get away with as little as 128MB of RAM, but anyone who's used it knows you need more.. a lot more.
I won't install XP on a system with only 256MB anymore. once you have the service packs up to date and something basic, like say MS Office installed 256 just isn't enough. 512MB is our XP minimum where I work. I don't anticipate this trend changing for Win7

[eadeguzman]

Windows 7 system requirement is lower than that of Vista. You should be fine at 1GB memory (unless you plan on opening quite a few applications at the same time).

I have Windows 7 on parallels with only 512MB and it's running fine. But my system host system is a 4GB Leopard (dual core, 64-bit). So I think the issue that Ina was having is more of a CPU issue then memory and it depends on how you configure parallels.

[mikefarren]

For years, I ran XP on a Fujitsu Lifebook with a Pentium II and 96MB of memory (the Lifebook's max). It wasn't a speed demon, by any means, but ran pretty acceptably. The statement "in most cases double or triple the maximum" is fine, but you don't *need* it. You may *want* it, it may make the system run better, but you don't *need* it.

[lordeagle]

Not to mention... who wants to run around carrying a laptop AND a netbook!??? Lol.

Also 1GB total is definitely short. If you want to be complete in your tests, do us a favor and try again with 2GB, then/or 4GB of RAM on your Mac. My 2GB 20" iMac has a dedicated 1GB to Win7 in VMWare. Runs fine! To support the fact that you need more RAM: Win7 starts off with about 4xxMB of RAM used by the OS (compare this to the 700+ of Vista!!). Which means one you open an app or two you'll reach your max amount of RAM, and Win7 will have to start swapping. Given that HDD-intensive tasks (such as swapping) are probably what's the slowest in a VM... Draw the conclusion ;)

[cronos12]

This just in!!!

Windows 7's performance is Ghastly when run on a Commodore64!

It seems almost slanderous to state that an OS on a VM doesn't work properly and just comment on the fact that your running it below the required specs as an afterthought.

[goodspeed8701]

Seems like there are so much mac users using Windows 7 right now. Its great to see M$ use windows 7 to make peace between mac and pc users. PEACE

[lordeagle]

I wouldn't go that far. I've been a PC user for 20 years.. and I have to develop on the Microsoft platform. However I got P.O'ed at Dell & co for cheapo / not finished hardware. I love my Mac, but I still need to run Win for work on it.

The features and usability on Win7 are still NOWHERE near making *think* about switching back to "typical" PCs (because yes, a Mac *is* a PC).

[goodspeed8701]

Yeah you are right. We are all unique. My HP touchsmart is the best PC i have used with the 25 inch monitor i have all i want. i dont think i will be buying any pc until there is a 5ghz quad core pc. All thesame use whats best for you. What i am saying is that mac users are saying good thing about Win7 something i am seeing in many forum. Just want to sat PEACE once more

[polaris20]

I've got 64-bit 7 loaded with a single core assigned, 2GB of RAM assigned on a MacBook Pro 2.4Ghz, and it runs fine. I wouldn't run any VM on a 1GB physical machine. That seems like it'd be painful. 4GB RAM ran me $120 from OWC. I'd upgrade anyway, if I were you, and planning to be running any virtualization software.

[ckurowic]

I tried running XP in parallels on my MacBook which at the time had 1GB of RAM, even that was outrageously slow. Upgraded to 4GB, no problems.

[ronhawker]

You might want to check with Tom Merritt of Buzz Out Loud at Cnet who has two Windows 7 virtual machines running and seems to think they are working quite well. He mentioned this on Buzz Out Loud and on Cranky Geeks.

[davidwb45011]

Both my iMac and MBP have 4 GB of RAM and I can run Win7 in Parallels Desktop just fine. XP is a tad faster but so far I'd say I like Win7 a tad better....now. Microsoft provided a lot of jarring changes in Vista and unfortunately most of them remain in Win7 - but refined. Still, it took me a while to get used to some of the gratuitous changes.

[alan_06]

CNET is running out of news... It's sad to see see CNET News now used as a personal blogger. Post anything that's related to hot topic like Windows 7. What's next? Install on 500Mhz 250MB RAM and report Windows 7 sucks ;)

[getwired]

As others have said, the point of this article is lost. It badmouths Windows 7 - and yet does so by running in a woefully underpowered way. The title should have read "I ran Windows 7 with way to little RAM, and it got slow".

I may not be Microsoft's biggest fan anymore - but this is just wrong.

[jamesr.]

the fact that windows 7 loads slow, and take a while for some of its programs to load in microsoft virtual machine and it has some good features but it has more con than pros.

[eadeguzman]

"fact"? I guess you never read any of the comments here.

[massfat]

Perhaps windows 7 is running too fast for your brain to comprehend.

[gdieter1]

No problems (speed or graphics-related that is) running 64-bit Win7 in VM on a Mac Pro. I gave it 2 GB dedicated ram, though. My VM "7" box boots in aprox 15 seconds. Have to say the IE8 in the beta is very snappy - seems to render webpages noticeably faster than Safari in the native OS.

[ckurowic]

Okay. You can always find someone who claims their OS boots in 2 seconds flat....

If you are right and it DOES boot in 15 seconds, wait a month after using it and feel the registry burn your soul as you sit for minutes every reboot (which happens often).

[eadeguzman]

This experience seems accurate and it is Windows 7's target boot time. That's my experience as well... and I'm running it over a month now ;-)... Been using with Office applications, games and for software development (running huge Java and jsp code base on Eclipse and .Net project using Visual Studio).

Definitely faster than Vista. I'm using it as a primary Windows machine now.

[gdieter1]

So ckurowic, what's your beef? I was just stating my experience running 7 inside Fusion. I timed the boots a couple times and it DOES boot quickly (ok, more like anywhere from 15 to 45 seconds, seems inconsistent). And you're right, windows does bog down over time, but that's why I run it inside a VM window while I'm doing other stuff on my Mac. Win7 is still beta and yes, I have seen BSODs. But I still use windows XP at home occasionally (both in VMWare and a real, older PC) and XP is pretty stable.