OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/20522/Parallels_Desktop_for_Mac_4_0_Released Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:58:26 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Comment by Kroc http://osnews.com/thread?337054 http://osnews.com/thread?337054 I'm having a bad time with it. Everything has become more gimmicky, and less stable.

Upgrading a Virtual Machine masks the VM with a stupid Windows-installer like splash screen, so you can't see if something on your screen is interfering with the install (Like TeaTimer).

The upgrade failed for me, and I had to install manually, which was fraught with its own problems, as now after a minute of using the VM, the mouse and keyboard stop working and the only way I could get the rest of the drivers installed was to plug in a USB keyboard and pipe it into the VM.

Now my perfectly stable 3.0 VM is an unusable 4.0 VM, and unless there's a patch soon, I'm going to have to time machine my way back to 3.0.

I think the difference between Fusion and Parallels has always been that VMWare understand that stability and accuracy comes first, then bling. Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Kroc) Comments Comment by Daniel Borgmann http://osnews.com/thread?337055 http://osnews.com/thread?337055 I will buy whichever virtualization tool allows me to run Linux with GL accelerated compositing. This mentions support for OpenGL 2.0, does anyone know if this also applies to Linux and if it works with compiz and co?

(I'm guessing not.) Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Daniel Borgmann) Comments Mac 4.0? http://osnews.com/thread?337057 http://osnews.com/thread?337057 The headline is a bit misleading... Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Glynser) Comments Mac 4.0 ? http://osnews.com/thread?337059 http://osnews.com/thread?337059 Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac released.

fixed ;-) Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Jenne) Comments 50% Better Performance http://osnews.com/thread?337062 http://osnews.com/thread?337062 Are they really serious about that? 50%? Thats a big claim to make. Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (TownDrunk) Comments RE: 50% Better Performance http://osnews.com/thread?337075 http://osnews.com/thread?337075 Considering how bad Parallels was before, I can believe 50%. VMWare Fusion 2.0 was a far, far better performer and used less memory too.

One thing I especially hated was Parallels NAT network performance...really bad, with tons of CPU use on 100 Mb. Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (zlynx) Comments games? http://osnews.com/thread?337078 http://osnews.com/thread?337078 They seem to be boasting about directx 9 support, how is it playing a 3d pc game?

Or is that still beyond its remit? Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Adurbe) Comments better than VMWare Fusion http://osnews.com/thread?337083 http://osnews.com/thread?337083 Please help me decide which to buy - Parallels or Fusion Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lqsh) Comments RE: better than VMWare Fusion http://osnews.com/thread?337085 http://osnews.com/thread?337085 It's quite easy, purchase VMware for the simple fact that there feature rich updates are free of charge.

I purchased Parallels 2.0 and then paid for the upgrade to 3.0. The purchase to 3 was the most annoying as i had upgraded to leopard and needed 3 to get parallels to work. I know many will say that i didn't have to pay to upgrade to leopard so it's not technically parallels fault, however all of these things and more were given to the users of VMWare.

I know that the next time i have to pay to upgrade i will be switching to VMWare. I don't care for bling, i just need fast and stable windows virtualisation on the Mac. Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (REM2000) Comments RE[2]: better than VMWare Fusion http://osnews.com/thread?337087 http://osnews.com/thread?337087 Does VMWare have that Coherence feature? Does it work well in Parallels? Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lqsh) Comments Virtualbox http://osnews.com/thread?337093 http://osnews.com/thread?337093 You can always buy virtualbox. It's free, fast and awesome. Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mmrezaie) Comments RE: better than VMWare Fusion http://osnews.com/thread?337103 http://osnews.com/thread?337103 I just got my first intel mac this week. I installed virtualbox 2.0 and have installed unbuntu, windows and opensolaris.

It works really well. I can't justify spending money on Parallels or Fusion.

Unless you really need the 3D support, virtualbox should meet your needs for free. Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Arun) Comments Fusion and Parallels http://osnews.com/thread?337104 http://osnews.com/thread?337104 I was using Parallels 3.0 and then tried Fusion 2.0 because I wanted the 64-bit and multi-CPU support. I installed 4 virtual machines that run at once (on a Mac Pro). It was very slow overall (really impacted the MAC side when all 4 VMs were running @ once), and one would hang during the Solaris X86 install. My MAC OS X system crashed (due to trying to run both Fusion & Parallels @ the same time), I brought it back up and a Fusion virtual machine wouldn't boot, it gave an error. When I checked the VMware forums other users had this same problem and it had a horrible work around.
After this Fusion 2.0 experience I went back to using Parallels 3.0. In my personal testing, Parallels 3.0 ran much faster Windows guest then Fusion 2.0. Parallels is as stable as Fusion on my setup. This was using virtual hard disk files (not a dedicated volume).
I installed Parallels 4.0 the other day and converted all my virtual machines. A couple gave an error, but all I had to do was login and manually install the Parallel Tools. So far everything is working great, and it is really fast. The Corherence mode works much smoother. I also like how the Windows task bar icons appear in the MAC top tool bar when in Corherence. So far I really like Parallels 4.0, and from my personal tests on my MAC Pro, it runs much better then Fusion 2.0, and offers more features. I would suggest for anyone wondering which one to get to get both and try it yourself and you be the judge. In my case Parallels wins hands down (and this is coming from a VMware ESX admin). Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (boing) Comments RE: better than VMWare Fusion http://osnews.com/thread?337105 http://osnews.com/thread?337105 Both have free trials. Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Kroc) Comments RE[3]: better than VMWare Fusion http://osnews.com/thread?337109 http://osnews.com/thread?337109 VMware Fusion has Unity which is essentially the same thing. It has some slightly different features which can make it easier to use and manage Windows with. Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (opieum) Comments RE: Virtualbox http://osnews.com/thread?337110 http://osnews.com/thread?337110 Tried it on my 20" iMac...blech. It didn't do the video right. The days I have to edit the xorg.conf file should be over.

Not saying it won't get better...and I will continue to try it. Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sigzero) Comments RE[2]: Virtualbox http://osnews.com/thread?337111 http://osnews.com/thread?337111
Tried it on my 20" iMac...blech. It didn't do the video right. The days I have to edit the xorg.conf file should be over.

Not saying it won't get better...and I will continue to try it.


All I had to do was select "install virtualguest additions" and install that in all the guests.

I get 1440x900 in all 3 guests.

It can't hurt to try the others with the free trials. I am going to as well.Edited 2008-11-12 18:58 UTC Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Arun) Comments virtualbox http://osnews.com/thread?337184 http://osnews.com/thread?337184 I dropped Parallels after initially purchasing a license and then within 5 months needing to re-purchase another. Recently I have bumped into Sun Microsystem's free Virtualbox and have pretty much written off both Parallels and EMC.

90% of us folks do not need the needless features of these forced upgrades.

Say hello to a screwed economy. Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (joemac) Comments Parallels has terrible customer service http://osnews.com/thread?337225 http://osnews.com/thread?337225 I started with Parallels 2.0, and it works okay. However, I would ran into a number of compatibility problems and instability issues. All attempts to contact their customer service were futile. I would always get an automated response, but never any follow-up. It's one thing to have to just deal when using free software, but when I pay for something, I expect to get support, and Parallels has none.

When I got an upgrade offer to 3.0 for a discount, I emailed them again, explaining my frustration with their customer service but that I would upgrade if I got ANY kind of response. Nada. So no upgrade.

Then I contacted VMware and told them that I was interested in Fusion, but I wanted to make sure their customer service was better than Parallels before I purchased. No response from them either.

Something I've learned from this and other experiences: Before you buy a product, call their sales and support lines and make sure the company will actually answer the phone and answer your questions in a timely manner. Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (theosib) Comments RE: better than VMWare Fusion http://osnews.com/thread?337243 http://osnews.com/thread?337243 I'm a happy Fusion user. Parallels' newest version has some nifty stuff that Fusion doesn't, most notably hardware-accelerated OpenGL support (they both have DX9), the ability to use removeable media from both OSes simultaneously, and the ability to browse files on/from either platform seamlessly (Fusion lets you browse Mac files on Windows but it's very slow, and it can browse Windows files from the Mac only when the Windows VM is shut down).

All this is really nice and enticing. But despite it all, VMWare is just rock-solid, and Parallels (at least in previous iterations) has not had nearly as good a record. Also, as mentioned the upgrade from Fusion 1.0->2.0 was free. That was a very nice early Christmas present this year ;) .

Parallels pioneered the Windows-on-Macintel market, and is still kicking out innovative products and spurring the market onward. More power to them. I'll wait to see what the reviews say about the new version's stability before recommending it to anyone, though.Edited 2008-11-13 19:55 UTC Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Moochman) Comments RE[3]: Virtualbox http://osnews.com/thread?337350 http://osnews.com/thread?337350 Seems people like you at Sun are doing a great job destroying the company. Are you one of the 6000 ? Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mickrussom) Comments