Review: New Parallels, Fusion virtual desktops for OS X fail the smell test

Infoworld - Every time there's a new version of OS X, there's also a new version of Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion, the two desktop virtualization products that let you run Windows, Linux, and OS X in virtual machines on your Mac. As Apple has sped up the pace of new OS X versions, the Parallels and Fusion upgrades have gotten, well, skimpier, with fewer compelling new features.

Yet the price remains the same: for Parallels, $50 to upgrade from the previous version, and $80 from any version before that or for new purchases; for Fusion, $50 to upgrade from the previous two versions, $60 otherwise. Like last year's upgrades, this year's versions fail the value test. It's becoming a tax on using Windows on a Mac, and most people I know rarely fire up Windows on their Mac after the first few months of switching, unless their business requires it.

[ Parallels Access lets you run Windows and Mac apps on your iPad -- but you may not like what you get if you do. | Test your Apple smarts with our Apple IQ test: Round 2. | Keep up with key Apple technologies with InfoWorld's Technology: Apple newsletter. ]

With the imminent arrival of OS X Mavericks, Parallels has released Parallels Desktop 9 and EMC VMware has released VMware Fusion 6. You can run the previous versions -- 8 and 5, respectively -- in Mavericks, so you don't have to get a new version to maintain compatibility with Apple's latest OS. Although both companies tout "new" Windows 8.1 and OS X Mavericks guest-OS compatibility in their new versions, I ran Windows 8.1 Preview and OS X Mavericks beta just fine in the previous versions. Further, OS X Mavericks beta runs both products' previous versions without a hitch. You don't need a new version of Parallels or Fusion just because of OS X Mavericks or Windows 8.1.

Because the OS updates are compatible with older versions of the virtualization programs, it becomes even more essential that the upgrade price match the new capabilities' value.

Of the two, Parallels Desktop has the greater number of interesting features (it did last year as well) -- ironically, they're meant to improve Windows 8 by adding a true Start menu and by making it work more like OS X.

VMware Fusion 6: Nothing much new hereMost of Fusion 6's enhancements are under the hood. You can allocate more RAM to each VM (64GB, up from 8GB) and use larger drives (8TB, up from 2TB). Fusion 6 also supports -- as any app does, with no modifications needed -- new OS X Mavericks capabilities such as the options for multimonitor setups that let you put a full-screen app window in its own desktop and use an Apple TV-connected monitor as if it were a monitor attached to your Mac.

When running Windows 8, Fusion 6 lets you place Metro apps (those purchased from the Windows Store) onto your Mac's Dock, in addition to the traditional Windows 7-style applications.

VMware didn't take the opportunity to standardize how it maps the Windows key commands in Fusion; as in the last version, sometimes you press Command and sometimes you have to press Cmd-Shift with the key to get the Windows key equivalent. That's a real usability blocker.

In other words, Fusion 6 is not much of an upgrade. Make no mistake: Fusion is a fine product, but there's no reason to pay $50 for the current version.

Parallels Desktop 9: Making Windows 8 a little less objectionableUnlike Fusion, the new version of Parallels tries to add something new for users to experience.

A neat idea is shared access to your cloud storage -- be it iCloud, Dropbox, Google Drive, and/or SkyDrive. Its appeal may not be so apparent until you realize that these cloud storage services copy their files to your local devices in a cache while you're connected; if both your Mac and VM access one of these services, you end up with two caches taking space. When running Windows, Parallels displays the iCloud (including Photo Stream), Google Drive, and Dropbox caches on your Mac as if they were local folders in Windows. They're actually aliases.

Likewise, your SkyDrive folder in Windows is supposed to appear as an alias on the Mac, in the Devices section of Finder windows. But even after installing the SkyDrive desktop app in the Windows 7 portion of Windows 8 (so that it appears in the File Explorer), I couldn't get it to display on the Mac.

Also, if you use SkyDrive on the Mac, it's not aliased to your Windows VM as the other services are, nor to Box in either direction. Cloud aliasing doesn't work if you're running an OS X VM on your Mac either.

But most of what Parallels proposes to make Desktop better in the new version has to do with Windows 8. Nearly everyone who's used Windows 8 strongly dislikes it; everyone I know who's tried it has bought a Mac or found one of the few remaining Windows 7 PCs at Dell or Hewlett-Packard instead. Not a single person I know went with Windows 8 by choice -- and these people were not fanboys of any platform.

So making Windows 8 work better is a laudable goal that may have limited appeal. After all, one of the beautiful aspects of running Windows in a VM is that you aren't forced to switch to a new version when you get new hardware. A Mac can be a Windows 7 PC you run forever.

But let's say that you have to run Windows 8. Parallels Desktop 9 claims to make it less obnoxious.

First, Parallels promises that you'll get a real Start menu, not the silly button in Windows 8.1 that merely switches between the Start screen and the Desktop -- which the Windows key on your PC (or Command on your Mac) already does for you. But Parallels' Start menu is not there out of the box. To get it, you need to ... well, I don't know. I couldn't figure it out, and Parallels didn't respond to my several queries. You might as well get an app like Start8 for your current VM and not fool with the new version of Parallels Desktop.

Parallels also promises that you can run Metro apps in windows on your Mac's Desktop, rather than in Windows 8's ungainly full-screen-only Start Screen mode. I guess the folks at Parallels took InfoWorld's suggestions for improving Windows 8, even if Microsoft didn't. However, you can't run Metro apps in their own windows within the full-screen Windows Desktop -- where this feature would be most useful. Worse, I couldn't get this feature to work as advertised on the Mac Desktop, either. Parallels' PR shows multiple Metro windows on the Desktop, sized appropriately. But in my tests, every Metro app took a full screen (and required switching to what Parallels calls Coherence mode) -- a major waste of screen real estate if you have a 27-inch monitor as I do.

There are some promising under-the-hood improvements in Parallels Desktop 9. For one, Windows apps can update while Windows is asleep, using the Power Nap mode in late-model Macs that allows OS X background app updates during sleep. Another is direct support for Thunderbolt drives, which can be directly connected to the Windows VM, if formatted as NTFS, FAT, or ExFAT. Then there's the ability to print straight to PDF from any Windows app's Print dialog box, offered by OS X for years. (Unlike some of the other Parallels additions, these actually work!)

Linux gets more support in Parallels Desktop 9, including new compatibility with the Mint and Mageia distros, as well as the ability to share apps between a Linux VM and OS X, as you could long do with Windows apps and OS X.

None of Parallels' enhancements are worth the upgrade price, especially given the futility of the key features, but at least they try to make your virtual life better.

What you should get: Parallels Desktop or VMware Fusion? I suspect few people buy new copies of Parallels Desktop or VMware Fusion these days (they're $80 each, by the way). Most users have probably been using one or the other for a while and are trying to decide whether to upgrade. I wouldn't pay money for VMware Fusion 6, and I would buy Parallels Desktop 9 only if I were using Windows 8 a lot. Most users can stick with what they already have.

If you're new to virtualization on the Mac, get Parallels Desktop 9. Although both Fusion and Parallels will run Windows 8, 7, Vista, and XP without issue, as well as OS X Lion and later and the popular Linux distros, it's clear that Parallels is more invested in its product and is offering more Mac-like usability and clever features.

However, Parallels implements its new capabilities haphazardly, a lingering issue over the years. I dropped Parallels for Fusion two years ago for that reason, and I dumped Windows six years ago as my primary platform due to the uneven quality. As someone who already has the previous versions of both products, I'm slightly tempted to upgrade to Parallels Desktop 9 but not at all intrigued by VMware Fusion 6.

As you can tell, I'm leery of returning to a world of mediocrity -- Parallels is too PC! That alone should make you think twice before spending your hard-earned money to upgrade or switch to either of these products.

This story, "Review: New Parallels, Fusion virtual desktops for OS X fail the smell test," was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Keep up on the latest developments in mobile technology and security at InfoWorld.com. For the latest business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.

Read more about virtualization in InfoWorld's Virtualization Channel.

Reprinted with permission from InfoWorld. Story copyright 2012 InfoWorld Media Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

View the original article here

Review: New Parallels, Fusion virtual desktops for OS X fail the smell test

Infoworld - Every time there's a new version of OS X, there's also a new version of Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion, the two desktop virtualization products that let you run Windows, Linux, and OS X in virtual machines on your Mac. As Apple has sped up the pace of new OS X versions, the Parallels and Fusion upgrades have gotten, well, skimpier, with fewer compelling new features.

Yet the price remains the same: for Parallels, $50 to upgrade from the previous version, and $80 from any version before that or for new purchases; for Fusion, $50 to upgrade from the previous two versions, $60 otherwise. Like last year's upgrades, this year's versions fail the value test. It's becoming a tax on using Windows on a Mac, and most people I know rarely fire up Windows on their Mac after the first few months of switching, unless their business requires it.

[ Parallels Access lets you run Windows and Mac apps on your iPad -- but you may not like what you get if you do. | Test your Apple smarts with our Apple IQ test: Round 2. | Keep up with key Apple technologies with InfoWorld's Technology: Apple newsletter. ]

With the imminent arrival of OS X Mavericks, Parallels has released Parallels Desktop 9 and EMC VMware has released VMware Fusion 6. You can run the previous versions -- 8 and 5, respectively -- in Mavericks, so you don't have to get a new version to maintain compatibility with Apple's latest OS. Although both companies tout "new" Windows 8.1 and OS X Mavericks guest-OS compatibility in their new versions, I ran Windows 8.1 Preview and OS X Mavericks beta just fine in the previous versions. Further, OS X Mavericks beta runs both products' previous versions without a hitch. You don't need a new version of Parallels or Fusion just because of OS X Mavericks or Windows 8.1.

Because the OS updates are compatible with older versions of the virtualization programs, it becomes even more essential that the upgrade price match the new capabilities' value.

Of the two, Parallels Desktop has the greater number of interesting features (it did last year as well) -- ironically, they're meant to improve Windows 8 by adding a true Start menu and by making it work more like OS X.

VMware Fusion 6: Nothing much new hereMost of Fusion 6's enhancements are under the hood. You can allocate more RAM to each VM (64GB, up from 8GB) and use larger drives (8TB, up from 2TB). Fusion 6 also supports -- as any app does, with no modifications needed -- new OS X Mavericks capabilities such as the options for multimonitor setups that let you put a full-screen app window in its own desktop and use an Apple TV-connected monitor as if it were a monitor attached to your Mac.

When running Windows 8, Fusion 6 lets you place Metro apps (those purchased from the Windows Store) onto your Mac's Dock, in addition to the traditional Windows 7-style applications.

VMware didn't take the opportunity to standardize how it maps the Windows key commands in Fusion; as in the last version, sometimes you press Command and sometimes you have to press Cmd-Shift with the key to get the Windows key equivalent. That's a real usability blocker.

In other words, Fusion 6 is not much of an upgrade. Make no mistake: Fusion is a fine product, but there's no reason to pay $50 for the current version.

Parallels Desktop 9: Making Windows 8 a little less objectionableUnlike Fusion, the new version of Parallels tries to add something new for users to experience.

A neat idea is shared access to your cloud storage -- be it iCloud, Dropbox, Google Drive, and/or SkyDrive. Its appeal may not be so apparent until you realize that these cloud storage services copy their files to your local devices in a cache while you're connected; if both your Mac and VM access one of these services, you end up with two caches taking space. When running Windows, Parallels displays the iCloud (including Photo Stream), Google Drive, and Dropbox caches on your Mac as if they were local folders in Windows. They're actually aliases.

Likewise, your SkyDrive folder in Windows is supposed to appear as an alias on the Mac, in the Devices section of Finder windows. But even after installing the SkyDrive desktop app in the Windows 7 portion of Windows 8 (so that it appears in the File Explorer), I couldn't get it to display on the Mac.

Also, if you use SkyDrive on the Mac, it's not aliased to your Windows VM as the other services are, nor to Box in either direction. Cloud aliasing doesn't work if you're running an OS X VM on your Mac either.

But most of what Parallels proposes to make Desktop better in the new version has to do with Windows 8. Nearly everyone who's used Windows 8 strongly dislikes it; everyone I know who's tried it has bought a Mac or found one of the few remaining Windows 7 PCs at Dell or Hewlett-Packard instead. Not a single person I know went with Windows 8 by choice -- and these people were not fanboys of any platform.

So making Windows 8 work better is a laudable goal that may have limited appeal. After all, one of the beautiful aspects of running Windows in a VM is that you aren't forced to switch to a new version when you get new hardware. A Mac can be a Windows 7 PC you run forever.

But let's say that you have to run Windows 8. Parallels Desktop 9 claims to make it less obnoxious.

First, Parallels promises that you'll get a real Start menu, not the silly button in Windows 8.1 that merely switches between the Start screen and the Desktop -- which the Windows key on your PC (or Command on your Mac) already does for you. But Parallels' Start menu is not there out of the box. To get it, you need to ... well, I don't know. I couldn't figure it out, and Parallels didn't respond to my several queries. You might as well get an app like Start8 for your current VM and not fool with the new version of Parallels Desktop.

Parallels also promises that you can run Metro apps in windows on your Mac's Desktop, rather than in Windows 8's ungainly full-screen-only Start Screen mode. I guess the folks at Parallels took InfoWorld's suggestions for improving Windows 8, even if Microsoft didn't. However, you can't run Metro apps in their own windows within the full-screen Windows Desktop -- where this feature would be most useful. Worse, I couldn't get this feature to work as advertised on the Mac Desktop, either. Parallels' PR shows multiple Metro windows on the Desktop, sized appropriately. But in my tests, every Metro app took a full screen (and required switching to what Parallels calls Coherence mode) -- a major waste of screen real estate if you have a 27-inch monitor as I do.

There are some promising under-the-hood improvements in Parallels Desktop 9. For one, Windows apps can update while Windows is asleep, using the Power Nap mode in late-model Macs that allows OS X background app updates during sleep. Another is direct support for Thunderbolt drives, which can be directly connected to the Windows VM, if formatted as NTFS, FAT, or ExFAT. Then there's the ability to print straight to PDF from any Windows app's Print dialog box, offered by OS X for years. (Unlike some of the other Parallels additions, these actually work!)

Linux gets more support in Parallels Desktop 9, including new compatibility with the Mint and Mageia distros, as well as the ability to share apps between a Linux VM and OS X, as you could long do with Windows apps and OS X.

None of Parallels' enhancements are worth the upgrade price, especially given the futility of the key features, but at least they try to make your virtual life better.

What you should get: Parallels Desktop or VMware Fusion? I suspect few people buy new copies of Parallels Desktop or VMware Fusion these days (they're $80 each, by the way). Most users have probably been using one or the other for a while and are trying to decide whether to upgrade. I wouldn't pay money for VMware Fusion 6, and I would buy Parallels Desktop 9 only if I were using Windows 8 a lot. Most users can stick with what they already have.

If you're new to virtualization on the Mac, get Parallels Desktop 9. Although both Fusion and Parallels will run Windows 8, 7, Vista, and XP without issue, as well as OS X Lion and later and the popular Linux distros, it's clear that Parallels is more invested in its product and is offering more Mac-like usability and clever features.

However, Parallels implements its new capabilities haphazardly, a lingering issue over the years. I dropped Parallels for Fusion two years ago for that reason, and I dumped Windows six years ago as my primary platform due to the uneven quality. As someone who already has the previous versions of both products, I'm slightly tempted to upgrade to Parallels Desktop 9 but not at all intrigued by VMware Fusion 6.

As you can tell, I'm leery of returning to a world of mediocrity -- Parallels is too PC! That alone should make you think twice before spending your hard-earned money to upgrade or switch to either of these products.

This story, "Review: New Parallels, Fusion virtual desktops for OS X fail the smell test," was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Keep up on the latest developments in mobile technology and security at InfoWorld.com. For the latest business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.

Read more about virtualization in InfoWorld's Virtualization Channel.

Reprinted with permission from InfoWorld. Story copyright 2012 InfoWorld Media Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

View the original article here

Wanted: A truly helpful mobile virtual personal assistant

We've been on the brink of a new relationship with our gadgets for years.

"Real soon now," we're told, mobile apps will interrupt us with personalized information we never asked for. These interruptions would show us opportunities ("Those shirts you like are half-off at the store around the corner"), facilitate our social lives ("Your friend Janet is also visiting New York and is free for lunch—would you like to invite her?") and save our bacon ("You haven't ordered a flower delivery for your anniversary—would you like me to take care of it?").

What are they waiting for?

Apple's Siri responds impressively but doesn't take the initiative to interrupt much.

MindMeld is supposed to ship to general availability an app that churns out information related to your video conversations. The technology and platform look impressive, but the purpose of MindMeld's proof-of-concept app will be context for conversations, not mobile personal assistance.

EasilyDo is supposed to give you predictive results, but like most in this category, you have to work for it. The results are a fraction of what you want, actually harvesting data from social networks, calendars and location-oriented databases and placing them in a stream.

EasilyDo performs a wide variety of useful tasks like contacting people for you, telling you when to leave for your meeting, getting directions, automatically creating new contacts and many other things. EasilyDo automates tasks to simulate a personal assistant, but it doesn't do anything you haven't specifically commanded it to do. It doesn't interrupt you proactively with contextual information beyond things like telling you to leave for your next meeting.

Osito is another cool app that suffers from the same lack of creative interruption as EasilyDo. It's more of a rollup of the kinds of information you can get elsewhere, but presented in a stream with some pop-ups. It's more about automation than contextual assistance.

Foursquare just got interesting. The company rolled out a test version of Foursquare that throws advice and context at you when you walk into a restaurant or around a neighborhood. ("Try the cheese fries in this place—they're incredible.")

Checking in isn't required. In fact, the information will pop up even if the Foursquare app isn't running. Now that's what I'm talking about.

Sadly, the test is for 2000 lucky Android users only, with a wider rollout promised for an unspecified future. Foursquare tested a comparable feature called "Radar" two years ago, but killed it after "Radar" killed battery life.

Google Now has by far the best proactive interruption in the business, if you have an Android device.

Google Now grabs information about you from Gmail, Google Search, and elsewhere, and uses that data to improve results.

Lately, Google has folded in some amazing capabilities. For example, it preemptively feeds you information about your car rentals, public transportation information based on guesses about where you might want to go, movie tickets and sports scores.

Google Now tells you more information about whatever's on screen. It knows what you're watching because, with your permission, it listens to the sound of the show to figure out what you're watching.

Google Now is great in every way except one—it doesn't give you enough information. Leaving Google Now running gives you a mostly static view, with "cards" coming in very infrequently.

Field Trip, another Google product, is wonderful only because of what it promises, not what it delivers.

We learned recently that Field Trip was originally designed for Google Glass but shipped on the iPhone while Glass was still in early development. It's now available on Glass.

Field Trip has the right idea, popping up contextual data. However, these are based on a list of arbitrary database-oriented websites, such as "Historic Detroit," "Public Art Archive," and "San Francisco Architectural Heritage." Unless you're in a major city, Field Trip contextual information is slim pickin's.

There are other services that claim to interrupt with contextual information. But in my experience these require launching the app and refreshing it—a conscious choice followed by deliberate action, which is the opposite of what's promised in this category—interruption.

Looking at these few examples, the industry overall seems hesitant, unwilling or (most likely) unable to meet the promise of interruption for contextual information.

It's true that this category is fraught with hazard. People feel their privacy is being violated when a gadget demonstrates what it knows about them. It's an irrational concern because not letting the user take full advantage of harvested data (as is the case today for most users) doesn't equal privacy, just ignorance.

Users might get overwhelmed by too much interruption data. But there are better ways to stop overload than simply withholding messages. Let it be turned up gradually. Offer a snooze feature. Set times of day. Notify only when moving.

The ideal service would combine the benefits of Foursquare, Google Now and Field Trip. It would give you useful and interesting data not just for general areas or historic landmarks, but down to the specific address level.

It would be like the test version of Foursquare, interrupting you whether the app is running or not.

It would be like Google Now with its uncanny ability to know all about you and learn from your actions.

It would be like Field Trip in bringing in disparate human-curated databases to augment your reality.

Most of all, I would like these services to turn up the fire hose. Limiting access to a handful of users like Foursquare, dribbling out frustrating little bits of data like Google Now, and limiting information sources to a handful of content sources like Field Trip isn't going to cut it.

This category has been full of promise and potential for two years now. The wearable computing category is exploding with activity. It's time for the industry to get over its shyness and start interrupting us with more and better personalized contextual information.

Follow TechHive on Tumblr today.

View the original article here

Why are virtual assistant apps so shy?

Computerworld - We've been on the brink of a new relationship with our gadgets for years.

"Real soon now," we're told, mobile apps will interrupt us with personalized information we never asked for. These interruptions would show us opportunities ("Those shirts you like are half-off at the store around the corner"), facilitate our social lives ("Your friend Janet is also visiting New York and is free for lunch -- would you like to invite her?") and save our bacon ("You haven't ordered a flower delivery for your anniversary -- would you like me to take care of it?").

What are they waiting for?

Apple's Siri responds impressively but doesn't take the initiative to interrupt much.

MindMeld is supposed to ship to general availability an app that churns out information related to your video conversations. The technology and platform look impressive, but the purpose of MindMeld's proof-of-concept app will be context for conversations, not mobile personal assistance.

EasilyDo is supposed to give you predictive results, but like most in this category, you have to work for it. The results are a fraction of what you want, actually harvesting data from social networks, calendars and location-oriented databases and placing them in a stream.

EasilyDo performs a wide variety of useful tasks like contacting people for you, telling you when to leave for your meeting, getting directions, automatically creating new contacts and many other things. EasilyDo automates tasks to simulate a personal assistant, but it doesn't do anything you haven't specifically commanded it to do. It doesn't interrupt you proactively with contextual information beyond things like telling you to leave for your next meeting.

Osito is another cool app that suffers from the same lack of creative interruption as EasilyDo. It's more of a rollup of the kinds of information you can get elsewhere, but presented in a stream with some pop-ups. It's more about automation than contextual assistance.

Foursquare just got interesting. The company rolled out a test version of Foursquare that throws advice and context at you when you walk into a restaurant or around a neighborhood. ("Try the cheese fries in this place -- they're incredible.")

Checking in isn't required. In fact, the information will pop up even if the Foursquare app isn't running. Now that's what I'm talking about.

Sadly, the test is for 2,000 lucky Android users only, with a wider rollout promised for an unspecified future. Foursquare tested a comparable feature called "Radar" two years ago, but killed it after "Radar" killed battery life.

Google Now has by far the best proactive interruption in the business, if you have an Android device.

Google Now grabs information about you from Gmail, Google Search and elsewhere, and uses that data to improve results.

Lately, Google has folded in some amazing capabilities. For example, it preemptively feeds you information about your car rentals, public transportation information based on guesses about where you might want to go, movie tickets and sports scores.

Google Now tells you more information about whatever's on screen. It knows what you're watching because, with your permission, it listens to the sound of the show to figure out what you're watching.

Small and midsize businesses are moving to the cloud to host their communications capabilities. Learn how enterprise-quality phone benefits, online management, conferencing, auto attendant, and ease of use are built into a system that is half the cost of a PBX.

Read now.

View the original article here

VMware adds networking, storage to its virtual data center stack

At the kick-off of its annual VMworld user conference, being held this week in San Francisco, VMware will fill in more layers of its software stack for running its envisioned software defined data center (SDDC).

“IT should be able to provision a production environment in minutes,” said Peter Wei, a VMware senior director of product marketing. “People want things very quickly, so you have to abstract the [IT infrastructure]. Otherwise it is not possible.”

Over the past few years, VMware has been expanding its core focus from virtualizing servers to a much broader task of virtualizing all the operations in a data center, using an architecture it calls SDDC. With SDDC, all of an organization’s infrastructure is virtualized, allowing data center administrators, in theory, to easily automate operations.

This year’s VMworld conference will provide more details about the products and protocols that could make SDDC a reality.

“People got the concept of SDDC, so some of the focus this year is how do we make it real,” Wei said. He noted that internal company surveys showed that 77 percent of VMware customers are thinking about expanding their virtualization strategy to storage and networking. To this end, the company is introducing new virtualization technologies for networking and storage.

Perhaps the most buzz for this year’s show is around network virtualization. At the conference, VMware will introduce products for its Network Virtualization Platform, NSX. Borrowing technology from VMware’s 2012 acquisition of Nicira, NSX virtualizes the networking layers of the OSI (Open Systems Interconnection) communications model.

VMwareVMworld’s network virtualization model, NSX

With NSX, administrators could execute and automate a wide variety of network configuration tasks, including the provisioning of switches, routers, load balancers, and virtual private networks.

“NSX is about speed, speed, speed,” Wei said. “NSX has a control plane that basically abstracts the hardware.” This abstraction allows the administrator to script actions, such as defining a new virtual local area network (VLAN), without the need to understand the protocols of each vendor’s hardware.

VMware is also extending its virtualization expertise to the storage layer. This week, the company will also introduce a beta of its Virtual Storage Area Network (VSAN), which the company unveiled at last year’s VMworld under the name of Distributed Storage.

Using VSAN software, an administrator can pool direct attached storage (DAS) hard drives across multiple servers to make one virtual SAN.

On the computing side, VMware is updating its vSphere software for managing virtual machines (VMs) to handle larger workloads. Virtual disks can now be as large as 64TB each—twice the size allowed in the previous edition. Release 5.5 of vSphere also includes a new connector for deploying Hadoop jobs, or other big data-style deployments, which can involve invoking hundreds or even thousands of virtual servers.

Joab Jackson covers enterprise software and general technology breaking news for the IDG News Service.
More by Joab Jackson

View the original article here

Facebook Gifts returns to marketing only virtual goodies

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

HSA targets native parallel execution in Java virtual machines by 2015

Industry consortium HSA Foundation intends to bring native support for parallel acceleration in Java virtual machines, which would make it easier to tap into multiple processors like graphics processors to speed up code execution.

HSA Foundation is in the process of developing an open hardware and software specification which will allow software to be written once and deployed easily across PCs, servers, gaming consoles and mobile devices. Right now overlays are needed for Java code to reach a co-processor like a GPU.

Native support for HSA's specifications in JVMs is expected with Java 9 in 2015, and parallel algorithms will be executed natively in JVMs without extra layers of code. The JVM will recognize HSA specifications, and tap into compatible accelerators to speed up program execution, said Phil Rogers, HSA Foundation president and Advanced Micro Devices corporate fellow, in a presentation at the Hot Chips conference in Stanford, California, on Sunday.

"Ultimately the parallel acceleration belongs in the Java virtual machine, and hopefully that is where it will reside," Rogers said.

HSA (Heterogeneous System Architecture) Foundation was founded last year by Advanced Micro Devices, Qualcomm, ARM Holdings and other companies. HSA's goal is to create a basic interface around industry-standard parallel programming tools like OpenCL, and to develop tools that are compatible across architectures and operating systems.

Computing devices use different hardware to speed up computing, and HSA's goal is also to harness the joint computing power of all processing resources available for faster and more power-efficient system performance. As an example, HSA specifications enable workloads to be broken up between CPUs and graphics processors for faster and more power efficient computing. That could lead to faster performance and longer battery life in mobile devices, and code can be deployed more cost-efficiently.

Some of the world's fastest computers harness the joint computing power of GPUs and CPUs for complex math calculations, while mobile devices have multiple processors for graphics and security. Some other types of co-processors include DSPs (digital signal processors), network processors, FPGAs (field programmable gate arrays) and specialized ASICs 

(application-specific integrated circuits).

AMD and Oracle are sponsoring an OpenJDK project called "Project Sumatra" to bring parallel acceleration to JVMs with Java 8, which will be generally available in March next year. Sumatra will repurpose Java 8's multi-core APIs called Stream or Lambda to enable both CPU or GPU computing, but it will need an extra layer of code for parallel execution.

With Java 9, support for parallel execution on HSA-compatible processors will be native, Rogers said in an interview following the presentation. A data-parallel API called APARAPI already allows Java developers to use the compute power of GPU and CPUs, but code-enablement will get easier in Java 8 and then 9.

Java is widely used in cloud deployments and big data applications. Hardware acceleration of those tasks in a virtualized environment without the extra layers of code could be more efficient, Rogers said.

HSA has already released some specifications to unify memory and lower the overhead required in dispatching jobs to hardware for execution. The HSA has introduced a new uniform memory architecture called HUMA that makes different memory types in a system accessible to all processors. Developers have access to a larger pool of shared memory in which code could be executed.

HSA Foundation members do not include Intel and Nvidia, who offer their own parallel programming tools. But the foundation's goals are loosely tied to AMD's chip strategy in which the company integrates third-party intellectual property so chips can be customized to customer needs. For example, AMD is making a customized chip for Sony's upcoming PlayStation 4 gaming console. Sony is also a member of HSA Foundation.

AMD is also expected to release next year laptop and desktop processors code-named Kaveri in which CPUs and graphics processors will be able to share memory.

Agam Shah covers PCs, tablets, servers, chips and semiconductors for IDG News Service. Follow Agam on Twitter at @agamsh. Agam's e-mail address is agam_shah@idg.com

Agam Shah is a reporter for the IDG News Service in New York. He covers hardware including PCs, servers, tablets, chips, semiconductors, consumer electronics and peripherals.
More by Agam Shah, IDG News Service

View the original article here

Review: Razer's Kraken 7.1 headset delivers great virtual surround sound at a reasonable price

San Francisco’s a fine city, but like any major metropolitan area the most common option for housing is a “cozy” hole in the wall with little room for furniture, much less hefty, neighbor-vexing sound systems.

Enter the gaming headset: a decent pair of cans will offer an appreciable aural improvement in merry-making, whether you’re taking potshots at zombies or enjoying your new Britney Spears record. Razer’s latest is the Kraken 7.1, a gorgeous piece of equipment bedecked in the peripheral maker’s trademark black and green-LED motif. A mere $99 gets you two ear pieces (one for each ear), a mic, and a lengthy USB cable to plug it into your PC or Mac.

The Kraken 7.1 is comfortable, if a little gaudy.

I kid. Like any good technology arms race, the modern headset needs to do a bit more than serve up sound to command lofty prices. The Kraken has chosen to prey on my one weakness—virtual 7.1 surround sound, a game changer (in the right games) that would otherwise require setting up more studio monitors and audio cable than my humble abode has square footage for.

Last spring I lent an ear to Razer’s Tiamat 7.1 gaming headset, and enjoyed it immensely. It’s expensive ($200) and requires a 5.1 or (ideally) 7.1 surround-sound capable sound card or motherboard to be a worthwhile purchase. When you have all that, you’ll still spend a bit of time twiddling knobs to get the audio just right. But once that’s all set, the ten drivers built into the Tiamat’s ear pieces serve up a luscious surround-soundscape that’s just about worth the price of entry, if you’re picky about something as nebulous as sense of space and aural immersion in games.

The virtual surround sound emulated by the Kraken 7.1 makes a huge difference in games that support it.

Now cut the Tiamat's price tag in half, eliminate much of the fiddling, and you’ve got a solid idea of what to expect from the Kraken 7.1. The headset employs Razer’s 7.1 virtual surround sound tech; PCWorld’s Alex Wawro checked out the standalone version of Razer Surround earlier this summer, and approved. It’s actually rather neat, though you’ll need to install Razer’s Synapse 2.0 software to tweak any settings—par for the course with most of Razer’s new wares. Synapse will let you calibrate the surround sound, a simple process that involves looking at a circular diagram that shows where sound is supposed to originate from, then shutting your eyes and tapping your arrow keys or scrolling your mouse wheel until the audio clip “lands” in the right place.

Now, you can’t simply plug in 7.1 surround sound gear and expect a world of difference. While every modern game is technically capable of spitting out environmental audio that’s cognizant of your position, you’ll get the best results from titles that are optimized with this sort of technology in mind. I’ve found that first-person shooters tend to take far more care with crafting 7.1-friendly experiences; fire up titles like Metro: Last Light, Dead Space 3 or Battlefield 3 for best results.

7.1 surround sound makes a big difference in the way you play atmospheric first-person shooters like Metro: Last Light.

These games do a heck of a job employing aural tricks to plant you in a particular place and inundating you with audio cues that tip you off to the baddies lurking around you. It's especially valuable during firefight—battles bolstered by 7.1 surround sound audio are an event unto themselves. Better players than me will take advantage of being able to hear those telltale footsteps, but even occasionally knowing a backstab is coming a second or two before I’m dead is its own little reward.

Little of this would matter if the headset sounded terrible. Thankfully, this headset does not sound terrible! The Kraken 7.1 delivers clear, rich audio in both games and music without missing a beat. Need more bass? A bass boost setting lets you tweak lower frequencies. Want to tweak your mic? A few sliders let you adjust your voice input settings and adjust the ambient noise reduction sensitivity. Tired of buzzwords and want to get down to brass tacks? Dive into the equalizer and fiddle to your hearts content. Everything sounds great, and you can make it sound greater still by mucking around in Synapse.

The tiny LED at the tip of the boom mic shuts off so you know it's been muted.

Voice input comes care of a digital boom microphone tucks neatly into the left ear cup, and sounds great. The mic sits on a flexible arm so you can adjust it to your heart’s content, and a tiny mute button sits on the end so you can chew that sandwich without disturbing your squadmates; pressing the button shuts off the LED at the tip of the mic, a brilliantly simple way of letting you know when you’re transmitting or not. The headset is also incredibly comfortable: the big, comfy ear cups wrap tightly around around my head, and while they won’t block out the outside world they will give you a cloistered audio experience—you’ll want to turn the volume down.

The Kraken 7.1 isn’t perfect. I always complain about wires, and this is a wired headset. But there’s a slight difference here. Many newer headsets bundle some sort of volume control gadget—the Plantronics Rig and Razer Tiamat both come equipped with a volume puck or brick that the headset plugs into. This leaves you with quite a bit of slack as you’ll only need to negotiate the distance between headset and puck, which will be within arms reach. The Kraken 7.1 needs to be plugged directly into your PC, which can be a hassle. In my case, that’s behind some monitors, around the back of my fairly large desk, and into the rear of my PC. If you’re gaming on a laptop, you’ll be fine. In my case I still had a fair amount of slack, but less than I’d like.

On a related note: mayhaps I’m spoiled, but it’s been years since I’ve used a headset that didn’t feature some kind of on-the-fly volume control, something the Kraken 7.1 is sorely lacking. The audio shortcut keys on my keyboard work in a pinch, but we don’t all have keyboards with loads of extra buttons on them.

I also ran into two technical issues. One was my own fault: my teammates complained that my voice sounded buzzy, as if I were transmitting from inside a hornet nest. I took a quick trip to the rear of my computer, switched USB ports and the problem was solved. The second issue was a bit odder—my review unit’s right earpiece is decidedly louder than the left. A quick trip to Windows’ volume mixer fixed the balance issue, but I’m still troubleshooting what the cause could be and lamenting that Razer’s Synapse serves up all sorts of bells and whistles, but doesn’t offer a simple Left-to-Right audio balance toggle.

So what are you paying for exactly? Truth be told, the Kraken 7.1 feels a lot like the original Kraken Pro ($80) with Razer’s surround sound technology baked into its configurator. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing—Razer Surround will start to cost $20 next year, so the Kraken 7.1 is essentially taking an updated version of existing hardware and bundling the software into the price.

Is the Kraken 7.1 worth $100? Sure. But if you already own a pair of stereo headsets you’re in love with, grab Razer’s Surround software instead. If you loathe wires, I’ve been rather smitten by the Creative Sound Blaster Tactic3D Rage ($90) for some time now, though it admittedly isn’t as comfortable. And if you’ve got even more cash to spend—as well as a sound card—get the Razer Tiamat, which is awesome. But if you’re right in the middle—demanding comfort, don’t mind wires, and want a solid 7.1 surround sound experience without spend beaucoup bucks—the Kraken 7.1 headset is an excellent choice.

View the original article here