Talk:VMware Fusion

message: I'm not sure why Comparison of VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop is a separate article. It should be merged into this and/or the VMware Fusion articles as the comparison article alone is not very encyclopaedic on its own merits. There is already a comparison of VMs page. It (the Comparison of Desktop and Fusion article) seems almost like a culmination of product reviews. Comments sought at Talk:Comparison_of_VMware_Fusion_and_Parallels_Desktop#Merger Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: I boldly removed all the stuff about what was added in betas as it is out of context for an encyclopaedic article.
My removal was reverted with a request for discussion. Let's go! 59.167.58.242 (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be confusing the beta release info with the final releases.  When you deleted the "beta" release notes, you also deleted the notes about releases 1.0 and 1.1.  Those ARE encyclopedic and should stay in the article.  Please be more careful when editing next time.  Also, please wait about a week before concluding that there's "no discussion". — EagleOne\Talk 16:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Save beta info for fan sites 

message: The articles states:
"Software features of Fusion include its ability to run 32-bit and 64-bit x86 "guest" operating systems [5], including support for Apple's current operating system, Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard"[4]"
This statement is either incorrect or very poorly worded.  Case 1 is that is supports Leopard as a guest OS, Case 2 is that is means Fusion can run on Leopard (a host OS).
If the statment is intended to mean Case 1, a reference is needed.  The reference link [4] to vmware's faq page only states "Does VMware Fusion run on Mac OS X Leopard?  Yes, VMware Fusion 1.1 is fully supported on Mac OS X Leopard."  It does not say Leopard can run as a guest OS.  It should not be able to, as I believe there are number of technical and legal reasons why it can't and shouldn't.
If the statement is intended to mean that Leopard can be a host OS, this sentence is terribly worded.  It strongly implies case 1.   "features include....ablility to run 32b and 64b guest os, including support for leopard"
I have updated it to reflect leopard as a HOST.  if case 1 is true, provide a reference
Mb2696 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leopard supported - as guest or host or both? 

message: To avoid vendor lock-in, it's always good to be able to take a virtual machine (VM) created
or used in one environment and use it in another. I am able to take a VM with a .vmdk file
suffix and use it interchangeably in both VMWare and Virtualbox in a Linux environment.
Since Virtualbox also works in OS X, presumably one could exchange VMs across Linux and
OS X using Virtualbox.
The Article about VMWare Fusion does not at all mention how easy or hard it is to take a
VM created within VMWare Fusion and move it into any other virtualization environment, or
vice versa. I think this type of information would be valuable to potential
users of virtualization products. Rahul (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTAFORUM (No tech support), and WP:NOHOWTO.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 02:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  VM migration info please 

message: I would seriously doubt that the Fusion GUI is written in C++. Personally, I'd bet very much on Objective-C/Cocoa. Also the quote does not refer specifically to Fusion, it's about virtualization software in general and the author might have Windows or Linux in mind.
NorthAce (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programming Languages in which Fusion is written in 

message: I was wondering why is there a message about secondary sources, what kind of other sources than the official website can you find for these kinds of articles? --Chopin2712 (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there a message about secondary sources