Ironically, the death knell of OS/2 was when it could "seamlessly" run Windows programs, as there was no reason to write any more OS/2 applications from that day forward. Something to think about.
I would disagree this was the death knell of OS/2. The death of OS/2 was much more complicated than can be attributed to a single factor, but, I think the the most important factor was MS effectively crippling it while working to bring Windows to the market to undermine it. (OS/2, for those who don't recall or never knew, was, initially, developed jointly by IBM and MS.) If it hadn't been sabotaged, and already mortally wounded by MS, seamlessly running Windows programs wouldn't even have been something that would have been attempted.
Too bad, in a way, there were some very nice features in the Workplace Shell, like documents that knew how to print themselves without launching the App, that were quite advanced at the time. OS/2 2.0 and later versions certainly had much more to offer than Windows at the time, but MS was very effective in cutting off oxygen to it. It was also, at the time, more advanced than Mac OS in many regards, although, the UI was not as polished, to be sure.
I largely agree with other posters who assert that the main point of Parallels/Fusion/<other product> is to a) make a Mac acceptable to management, and b) allow a user to run a few critical (often enterprise) apps that are Windows only. But, it does also allow you to not have to replace all your software immediately on switching to a Mac, which would be a large expense for many, but can be relatively painless spread out over time.
My $.02, I was a Parallels user since 2.0, upgraded to 3.0, but had a lot of issues with 4.0 that were never worked out. I tried Virtual Box when it was first released and had some issues there. I was under a deadline and couldn't wait for updates to Virtual Box so I jumped ship to VMware. It's works great, as advertised. To me it was worth spending a little extra $ to get the job done. Would I go back to Parallels? No. Their support response time became very slow and never addressed my issues (most of them were with USB and Palm syncing support).
Something always strikes me odd about how much energy is spent to get Windows running on a Mac.
Also equally as odd is the fact that the majority of people that I've come in contact with who buy a Mac, also buy Parallels AND Windows to run on their mac. Take a 1500 computer and add on top of that roughly another 150 bucks, just to run the "evil" OS, hits me in the funny bone. When in Windows, you still get your same issues! (And sometimes even more since we are in a virtualized arena. Note: Specific 3D programs are supported.)
At least people should save the money for Parallels and use boot camp, that way they unlock ALL of the computing power to Windows. If not that, then at least use Virtual Box. I use it, and it works well. I like supporting open-source and cross-platform softwares.
Just confuses me sometimes. People want to get away, but they just can't. They get a Mac and still run Windows.
I'm all for moving away from MS. Gotta talk to the developers of third party software I guess...
when i see a month of no threads about Mac issues at forums.macrumors.com is when i think about switching to a Mac
no hard drive clicks, no slowing down SATA speeds, no imac screen issues out of warranty, no freeze ups due to faulty graphics chips, no mention of restoring iphones as new phones to solve simple problems. seems like a lot of people are having battery, GPS and app issues when upgrading to a new iphone OS or restoring from a backup
That's like saying that you won't fly in an airplane until you see a headline in the paper, "Plane lands safely." Actually, that's the day to stop flying!
It's true that people discuss problems in the Mac forum. It's also true that people discuss ways of getting it to work right in the Windows forums. That's because problems are the exception on the Mac and the rule on Windows.
Also equally as odd is the fact that the majority of people that I've come in contact with who buy a Mac, also buy Parallels AND Windows to run on their mac.
This is what makes me question the intelligence and even the sanity of the corporate leaders at Microsoft. Why are they advertising how chintzy and cheap their hardware partners are? Microsoft doesn't make computers, so why do they care what hardware it runs on? It seems to me that we should be seeing a laptop switchers ad where the salesman discovers that the customer truly needs a high-end Mac, but needs Windows to play games. So he sells the customer Windows Ultimate to install in Boot Camp. Why doesn't Microsoft advertise Windows as the perfect accessory to a Mac?
Either they are too stupid to think of it or they don't want their customers comparing Windows and OS X on their desktops. Hm.
Reading "issues" forums is always going to be self selecting; the people with no problems tend to not be starting threads like "everything is working great". You'd see the same thing at an HP or Acer forum (maybe more so).
I think I'll start doing that. I'm tired of ignorant people not understanding that people don't complain about their computer (to you, your sister, or online) if it works like it should. he people that do make a stink are in the .1% yes thats "point one percent"
We've had many a computer at our print shop. The old ones die and you get a cheap replacement (pc for single process computing), but this G5 Tower that I'm typing on is 4 years old, faster than my Macbook and NEVER had a single problem. This things just keeps getting FASTER with ever new OS (Sadly Leopard will be it's last).
PC's have their purpose (anything not requiring you to use it and operate within it's gui, like processing files to be imposed to a aluminum plate) Macs are for end users. PCs (as they are) were never meant to be a consumer device.
This is what makes me question the intelligence and even the sanity of the corporate leaders at Microsoft. Why are they advertising how chintzy and cheap their hardware partners are? Microsoft doesn't make computers, so why do they care what hardware it runs on? It seems to me that we should be seeing a laptop switchers ad where the salesman discovers that the customer truly needs a high-end Mac, but needs Windows to play games. So he sells the customer Windows Ultimate to install in Boot Camp. Why doesn't Microsoft advertise Windows as the perfect accessory to a Mac?
Either they are too stupid to think of it or they don't want their customers comparing Windows and OS X on their desktops. Hm.
hmm I'm sure ballmer is too busy doing coke to read this forum, but if he ever read your idea, he'd steal it from you and do a campaign...it's quite brilliant
For al_bundy who wants a Mac forum with only unicorns and rainbows and bunnies: My MacBook Pro works great. Sure, I know, the lid is crooked. It wasn't delivered that way, that's my own craftsmanship. I dropped it from the kitchen table onto the floor once, and another time I dropped it onto the concrete floor at the office, but everything works perfectly! It's compatible with Active Directory, and even though I'm the guy in charge of the Windows help desk, I secretly use it at the office all day. The display is great, the sound quality is astonishing, the touch pad is wonderful, and my fingers fly over the keyboard with accuracy and ease. No problems,no complaints.
My iMac is perfect. No problems, no difficulties, no banging of the fist on the desk. I have never had an opportunity to drop it, so it can't complain about me, like my MacBook Pro can.
Once I had a Windows telephone, an iPAQ. I dropped it three feet onto the asphalt and had to buy a new one. Now I have an iPhone. I dropped it three feet onto the asphalt and it was fine. It worked just as well as before and only had one scratch. I think. I'm not sure.
So there you have a unicorn, a rainbow, a bunny, and a klutz (me).
Now imagine if MS crippled access to Windows in Windows 7 the way Apple cripples iTunes access to Palm.
That makes no sense at all and one has nothing at all to do with the other, wow you are really starting to slip in your trolling teckdud.
You are right, M$ will stop selling windows so that people can't install it on their mac, even though they are a software company, < N.dynamite> my gosh < /N.dynamite> you are retarded.
I've had Parallels from the beginning. It is not a good experience. If I had it to do over again I would put the money and time that I have wasted into a cheap pc and enjoy my Mac. I rarely use parallels and use it less and less. Advice: Don't buy it.
I've had Parallels from the beginning. It is not a good experience. If I had it to do over again I would put the money and time that I have wasted into a cheap pc and enjoy my Mac. I rarely use parallels and use it less and less. Advice: Don't buy it.
Really, just curious if you could list some if the issues you've had with it. I've been using it for years and the only issues I have had were being too lazy to actually read any of the docs, the early versions weren't that great but the last two major releases have been pretty much fantastic, so I'm just wondering what has made it such a bad experience for you.
Now imagine if MS crippled access to Windows in Windows 7 the way Apple cripples iTunes access to Palm.
Palm's approach: "I'm an iPod. Really. Trust me." is just so much more ethical. Do you normally interact with your neighbors by lying and misrepresenting yourself?
Given that iTunes was designed to let the user collect and play music, and also integrate iPod/iPhone devices with one's Mac or PC ... since when is Apple required to support some third-party device?
Really, just curious if you could list some if the issues you've had with it. I've been using it for years and the only issues I have had were being too lazy to actually read any of the docs, the early versions weren't that great but the last two major releases have been pretty much fantastic, so I'm just wondering what has made it such a bad experience for you.
I hope you don't mind me butting in but in version 4.0 the were some serious problems performing a Palm USB sync with the virtual machine. Most people would say "so what?" but I was working on a project for a company that required me to do some coding on a Windows machine and sync data back and forth. Version 4.0 also caused several slow downs that did get better as the updates slowly came out, but it was too little, too late. Their support at one time was steller but something changed, and even when people were submitting bug reports about the Palm sync issue (I was not the only one) it took 5 months and there still wasn't a solution.
I hope you don't mind me butting in but in version 4.0 the were some serious problems performing a Palm USB sync with the virtual machine. Most people would say "so what?" but I was working on a project for a company that required me to do some coding on a Windows machine and sync data back and forth. Version 4.0 also caused several slow downs that did get better as the updates slowly came out, but it was too little, too late. Their support at one time was steller but something changed, and even when people were submitting bug reports about the Palm sync issue (I was not the only one) it took 5 months and there still wasn't a solution.
This is cool but you have to look at the percentage of people would be using a Palm USB sync on the software and how many resources they could assign to that issue, let's face it in the BUGS database I have a feeling that's a pretty low priority.
I haven't used their software seriously until now, I am running JBOSS with a Java server app and serving up pages just fine, I also am able to hit the JBOSS server running in the windows box just fine from my mac, which is pretty much awesome for design development and all it took was one click to set up.
I can see where their customer support etc., has gone down hill (I suppose you could see it that way really) as they have grown into a major player in their space, gone are the days of calling them up and talking to an engineer that just happened to be at his desk to answer questions, have to expect that in any industry though.
Best of luck with your issue though!
---WHY didn't anyone tell me I could just put that trollstud on ignore before now!!
We switched to VMWare Fusion where Windows is all contained in one window and I haven't had to help anyone with anything since.
Seriously? You paid for Parallels, then threw it away and paid for Fusion because you didn't notice the "View -> Single Window" menu item in Parallels? Fusion has Unity mode which also blends Windows applications seamlessly the same way that the Coherence mode of Parallels does. You could've saved some money there...
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
Ironically, the death knell of OS/2 was when it could "seamlessly" run Windows programs, as there was no reason to write any more OS/2 applications from that day forward. Something to think about.
Actually I disagree. I remember IBM's (most accurate) slogan stating that OS/2 ran Windows better than Windows. Windows applications ran in their own virtual space inside OS/2 such that whenever that application (inevitably) crashed, only the virtual machine would freeze up (remember, this was during the Windows 3.1 days when an unstable application would take down your entire machine) and could be halted without affecting the rest of the system.
OS/2 died because Microsoft broke off its partnership with IBM (OS/2 was a originally a joint venture) and subsequently began its (illegal) practice of charging all vendors for a copy of Windows on every machine sold regardless of whether it was used or not. That is, if I wanted to buy a machine with an OS/2 license, I had to pay for the machine, pay for my OS/2 license, and pay for a Windows license, even though I didn't use it. That artificially (and drastically) inflated the cost of the machine and ensured that very few OS/2 licenses were sold.
The DOJ investigated and simply slapped Microsoft on the wrist and asked them to please stop. When the DOJ found that Microsoft had continued this policy, they slapped Microsoft on the wrist a second time and pretty much just say, "no really, please stop - pretty please?"
By this time OS/2 had died, as had Geoworks and any other competition Microsoft had for PC-based operating systems.
Comments
As I understand it, VPC was an emulator not a virtual machine so a big difference in performance. Until Apples used Intel chips that was the only way.
Yep you are correct!
give virtualbox a try...it's updated every 3 weeks or so, very good software, and free.
Will do! Thx
Ironically, the death knell of OS/2 was when it could "seamlessly" run Windows programs, as there was no reason to write any more OS/2 applications from that day forward. Something to think about.
I would disagree this was the death knell of OS/2. The death of OS/2 was much more complicated than can be attributed to a single factor, but, I think the the most important factor was MS effectively crippling it while working to bring Windows to the market to undermine it. (OS/2, for those who don't recall or never knew, was, initially, developed jointly by IBM and MS.) If it hadn't been sabotaged, and already mortally wounded by MS, seamlessly running Windows programs wouldn't even have been something that would have been attempted.
Too bad, in a way, there were some very nice features in the Workplace Shell, like documents that knew how to print themselves without launching the App, that were quite advanced at the time. OS/2 2.0 and later versions certainly had much more to offer than Windows at the time, but MS was very effective in cutting off oxygen to it. It was also, at the time, more advanced than Mac OS in many regards, although, the UI was not as polished, to be sure.
I largely agree with other posters who assert that the main point of Parallels/Fusion/<other product> is to a) make a Mac acceptable to management, and b) allow a user to run a few critical (often enterprise) apps that are Windows only. But, it does also allow you to not have to replace all your software immediately on switching to a Mac, which would be a large expense for many, but can be relatively painless spread out over time.
Also equally as odd is the fact that the majority of people that I've come in contact with who buy a Mac, also buy Parallels AND Windows to run on their mac. Take a 1500 computer and add on top of that roughly another 150 bucks, just to run the "evil" OS, hits me in the funny bone. When in Windows, you still get your same issues! (And sometimes even more since we are in a virtualized arena. Note: Specific 3D programs are supported.)
At least people should save the money for Parallels and use boot camp, that way they unlock ALL of the computing power to Windows. If not that, then at least use Virtual Box. I use it, and it works well. I like supporting open-source and cross-platform softwares.
Just confuses me sometimes. People want to get away, but they just can't. They get a Mac and still run Windows.
I'm all for moving away from MS. Gotta talk to the developers of third party software I guess...
when i see a month of no threads about Mac issues at forums.macrumors.com is when i think about switching to a Mac
no hard drive clicks, no slowing down SATA speeds, no imac screen issues out of warranty, no freeze ups due to faulty graphics chips, no mention of restoring iphones as new phones to solve simple problems. seems like a lot of people are having battery, GPS and app issues when upgrading to a new iphone OS or restoring from a backup
That's like saying that you won't fly in an airplane until you see a headline in the paper, "Plane lands safely." Actually, that's the day to stop flying!
It's true that people discuss problems in the Mac forum. It's also true that people discuss ways of getting it to work right in the Windows forums. That's because problems are the exception on the Mac and the rule on Windows.
Also equally as odd is the fact that the majority of people that I've come in contact with who buy a Mac, also buy Parallels AND Windows to run on their mac.
This is what makes me question the intelligence and even the sanity of the corporate leaders at Microsoft. Why are they advertising how chintzy and cheap their hardware partners are? Microsoft doesn't make computers, so why do they care what hardware it runs on? It seems to me that we should be seeing a laptop switchers ad where the salesman discovers that the customer truly needs a high-end Mac, but needs Windows to play games. So he sells the customer Windows Ultimate to install in Boot Camp. Why doesn't Microsoft advertise Windows as the perfect accessory to a Mac?
Either they are too stupid to think of it or they don't want their customers comparing Windows and OS X on their desktops. Hm.
Now imagine if MS crippled access to Windows in Windows 7 the way Apple cripples iTunes access to Palm.
Isn't any windows OS being crippled just a given??
(sorry, I just had to rib being that your post set it up so nicely!)
Reading "issues" forums is always going to be self selecting; the people with no problems tend to not be starting threads like "everything is working great". You'd see the same thing at an HP or Acer forum (maybe more so).
I think I'll start doing that. I'm tired of ignorant people not understanding that people don't complain about their computer (to you, your sister, or online) if it works like it should. he people that do make a stink are in the .1% yes thats "point one percent"
We've had many a computer at our print shop. The old ones die and you get a cheap replacement (pc for single process computing), but this G5 Tower that I'm typing on is 4 years old, faster than my Macbook and NEVER had a single problem. This things just keeps getting FASTER with ever new OS (Sadly Leopard will be it's last).
PC's have their purpose (anything not requiring you to use it and operate within it's gui, like processing files to be imposed to a aluminum plate) Macs are for end users. PCs (as they are) were never meant to be a consumer device.
And that's why most people are ignorant or naive.
This is what makes me question the intelligence and even the sanity of the corporate leaders at Microsoft. Why are they advertising how chintzy and cheap their hardware partners are? Microsoft doesn't make computers, so why do they care what hardware it runs on? It seems to me that we should be seeing a laptop switchers ad where the salesman discovers that the customer truly needs a high-end Mac, but needs Windows to play games. So he sells the customer Windows Ultimate to install in Boot Camp. Why doesn't Microsoft advertise Windows as the perfect accessory to a Mac?
Either they are too stupid to think of it or they don't want their customers comparing Windows and OS X on their desktops. Hm.
hmm I'm sure ballmer is too busy doing coke to read this forum, but if he ever read your idea, he'd steal it from you and do a campaign...it's quite brilliant
My iMac is perfect. No problems, no difficulties, no banging of the fist on the desk. I have never had an opportunity to drop it, so it can't complain about me, like my MacBook Pro can.
Once I had a Windows telephone, an iPAQ. I dropped it three feet onto the asphalt and had to buy a new one. Now I have an iPhone. I dropped it three feet onto the asphalt and it was fine. It worked just as well as before and only had one scratch. I think. I'm not sure.
So there you have a unicorn, a rainbow, a bunny, and a klutz (me).
Now imagine if MS crippled access to Windows in Windows 7 the way Apple cripples iTunes access to Palm.
That makes no sense at all and one has nothing at all to do with the other, wow you are really starting to slip in your trolling teckdud.
You are right, M$ will stop selling windows so that people can't install it on their mac, even though they are a software company, < N.dynamite> my gosh < /N.dynamite> you are retarded.
I've had Parallels from the beginning. It is not a good experience. If I had it to do over again I would put the money and time that I have wasted into a cheap pc and enjoy my Mac. I rarely use parallels and use it less and less. Advice: Don't buy it.
Really, just curious if you could list some if the issues you've had with it. I've been using it for years and the only issues I have had were being too lazy to actually read any of the docs, the early versions weren't that great but the last two major releases have been pretty much fantastic, so I'm just wondering what has made it such a bad experience for you.
Now imagine if MS crippled access to Windows in Windows 7 the way Apple cripples iTunes access to Palm.
Palm's approach: "I'm an iPod. Really. Trust me." is just so much more ethical. Do you normally interact with your neighbors by lying and misrepresenting yourself?
Given that iTunes was designed to let the user collect and play music, and also integrate iPod/iPhone devices with one's Mac or PC ... since when is Apple required to support some third-party device?
Please don't quote him, I have him muted and only suffer his trolling if quoted...
You can selectively mute posters? How?
Really, just curious if you could list some if the issues you've had with it. I've been using it for years and the only issues I have had were being too lazy to actually read any of the docs, the early versions weren't that great but the last two major releases have been pretty much fantastic, so I'm just wondering what has made it such a bad experience for you.
I hope you don't mind me butting in but in version 4.0 the were some serious problems performing a Palm USB sync with the virtual machine. Most people would say "so what?" but I was working on a project for a company that required me to do some coding on a Windows machine and sync data back and forth. Version 4.0 also caused several slow downs that did get better as the updates slowly came out, but it was too little, too late. Their support at one time was steller but something changed, and even when people were submitting bug reports about the Palm sync issue (I was not the only one) it took 5 months and there still wasn't a solution.
I hope you don't mind me butting in but in version 4.0 the were some serious problems performing a Palm USB sync with the virtual machine. Most people would say "so what?" but I was working on a project for a company that required me to do some coding on a Windows machine and sync data back and forth. Version 4.0 also caused several slow downs that did get better as the updates slowly came out, but it was too little, too late. Their support at one time was steller but something changed, and even when people were submitting bug reports about the Palm sync issue (I was not the only one) it took 5 months and there still wasn't a solution.
This is cool but you have to look at the percentage of people would be using a Palm USB sync on the software and how many resources they could assign to that issue, let's face it in the BUGS database I have a feeling that's a pretty low priority.
I haven't used their software seriously until now, I am running JBOSS with a Java server app and serving up pages just fine, I also am able to hit the JBOSS server running in the windows box just fine from my mac, which is pretty much awesome for design development and all it took was one click to set up.
I can see where their customer support etc., has gone down hill (I suppose you could see it that way really) as they have grown into a major player in their space, gone are the days of calling them up and talking to an engineer that just happened to be at his desk to answer questions, have to expect that in any industry though.
Best of luck with your issue though!
---WHY didn't anyone tell me I could just put that trollstud on ignore before now!!
We switched to VMWare Fusion where Windows is all contained in one window and I haven't had to help anyone with anything since.
Seriously? You paid for Parallels, then threw it away and paid for Fusion because you didn't notice the "View -> Single Window" menu item in Parallels? Fusion has Unity mode which also blends Windows applications seamlessly the same way that the Coherence mode of Parallels does. You could've saved some money there...
Ironically, the death knell of OS/2 was when it could "seamlessly" run Windows programs, as there was no reason to write any more OS/2 applications from that day forward. Something to think about.
Actually I disagree. I remember IBM's (most accurate) slogan stating that OS/2 ran Windows better than Windows. Windows applications ran in their own virtual space inside OS/2 such that whenever that application (inevitably) crashed, only the virtual machine would freeze up (remember, this was during the Windows 3.1 days when an unstable application would take down your entire machine) and could be halted without affecting the rest of the system.
OS/2 died because Microsoft broke off its partnership with IBM (OS/2 was a originally a joint venture) and subsequently began its (illegal) practice of charging all vendors for a copy of Windows on every machine sold regardless of whether it was used or not. That is, if I wanted to buy a machine with an OS/2 license, I had to pay for the machine, pay for my OS/2 license, and pay for a Windows license, even though I didn't use it. That artificially (and drastically) inflated the cost of the machine and ensured that very few OS/2 licenses were sold.
The DOJ investigated and simply slapped Microsoft on the wrist and asked them to please stop. When the DOJ found that Microsoft had continued this policy, they slapped Microsoft on the wrist a second time and pretty much just say, "no really, please stop - pretty please?"
By this time OS/2 had died, as had Geoworks and any other competition Microsoft had for PC-based operating systems.