I really like Parallels commercial products. Parallels Plesk Panel on the Linux servers is really a fantastic product. I used the Mac Desktop version a few years ago with Vista and it was pretty sluggish. I have several Windows machines available and I'm not space constrained either so I don't need to run any vitalization on my Macs. I haven't tried VMware.
Plesk is nice I agree. I actually do run Parallels and VMware both, simply so I am up on both products for support but for my on use I prefer VMWare to be honest.
One reason I like to run Windows in a VM is so I can simply have virgin copies to fire up every few weeks. Once set up and licensed with MS they can be moved, copied and deleted at will and it takes only a few minutes to replace one. Dealing with an actual PC is way more complex and time consuming. You can even move a VM to another Mac and the MS license remains intact which is great when replacing Macs with new ones.
Upgrade is also available for owners of version 4.
Per NovaDevelopment "Owners of Parallels Desktop 4 for Mac are normally required to purchase a full version of Parallels Desktop 7 for Mac to upgrade. But this offer makes Parallels Desktop 7 for Mac available for only $49. That's over 35% off your normal upgrade price."
It's called progress and it's only every year. It's streaks ahead of VMWare and VirtualBox doesn't even come close to Parallels.
Parallels is great and I will definitely be upgrading to this version as I have done for every version since 2 because for what I use it for it is far superior to anything else on the market.
To each their own I guess...
I used Parallels through versions 1 and 2 since VMWare didn't have anything for Mac at that time, and just found it to be poor quality. During that time, one of my VMs got corrupted (wouldn't boot) and was unrepairable. Thankfully I didn't lose anything important. Also, direct sharing of files between the VM and Mac OS didn't work at all (I had to resort to using SMB file sharing across my network -- the problem with that solution being that it doesn't work when connected to a VPN). Lastly, the VoIP software I was using (Windows-only) had choppy audio with my USB headset under Parallels.
I tried contacting their customer support about my issues, but they were less than helpful.
Prior to that, I had been using VMWare on Linux since 1999 to do cross-platform software development and testing and it was always rock solid. After VMWare Fusion came out and I found it had the same level of quality as VMWare Workstation (plus it solved both the file sharing and USB headset problems), I never looked back.
What are the reasons people would decide to operate Lion virtually inside an already Lion OS?
As a software developer, it's nice to be able to install developer preview versions of Mac OS X (or other software) without jeopardizing your main system. Or for testing software on a number of different Mac OS X point releases.
I used Parallels through versions 1 and 2 since VMWare didn't have anything for Mac at that time, and just found it to be poor quality. During that time, one of my VMs got corrupted (wouldn't boot) and was unrepairable. Thankfully I didn't lose anything important. Also, direct sharing of files between the VM and Mac OS didn't work at all (I had to resort to using SMB file sharing across my network -- the problem with that solution being that it doesn't work when connected to a VPN). Lastly, the VoIP software I was using (Windows-only) had choppy audio with my USB headset under Parallels.
I tried contacting their customer support about my issues, but they were less than helpful.
Prior to that, I had been using VMWare on Linux since 1999 to do cross-platform software development and testing and it was always rock solid. After VMWare Fusion came out and I found it had the same level of quality as VMWare Workstation (plus it solved both the file sharing and USB headset problems), I never looked back.
I don't want to sound like a douche here but are you serriously basing your preferences on versions that are over five years ago? VMWare sucked when it first came to the Mac also and basically is now so long in the tooth it's not even worth it anymore.
In terms of features and speed Parallels has slaughtered VMWare from version 5 and now we're up to version 7 whereas VMWare is version 3 still.
Seriously give Parallels another go, import your VMWare machine and see a world of difference. There are things I do with Parallels that VMWare just struggles to do namely with USB devices.
I bought Parallels couple of years back, but I have been mainly using VirtualBox and have been happy with it for what I want to do. BTW, it's free! I has been a little slow under Lion, but I am waiting for update that is certified under Lion
Microsoft purchased Connectix so Parallels was never Virtual PC.
yes I know there was a break there - but Parallels was the first (wasn't it) to come out after MS killed VPC for Mac - and it is the most similar in user experience (at least in my experience) to Virtual PC.
so while it may have looked like I was suggesting that Parallels is the current version of what used to be Virtual PC - what I was really getting at is that I have been using Virtualization software for a long time - both on Mac OS and others with numerous different guest OS installs from many vendors.
It's useful to be able to sandbox Lion within Lion for testing stuff without worries of mucking up the real OS. Same reason I run other OSes in VMs, it's great Apple finally allow this.
Yes. If you download a new app from the Internet, and not sure if safe or not, run it in your Lion VM for a while.
I wonder when VMware will be updated. That is my weapon of choice.
I don't want to sound like a douche here but are you serriously basing your preferences on versions that are over five years ago? VMWare sucked when it first came to the Mac also and basically is now so long in the tooth it's not even worth it anymore.
In terms of features and speed Parallels has slaughtered VMWare from version 5 and now we're up to version 7 whereas VMWare is version 3 still.
Seriously give Parallels another go, import your VMWare machine and see a world of difference. There are things I do with Parallels that VMWare just struggles to do namely with USB devices.
Seriously, you're trying to argue that Parallels is better on the basis of version numbers? You must be in marketing.
By that logic, OpenSSL (the most widely used SSL implementation in the world) isn't worth a look because it just reached version 1.0 recently.
I honestly think that Parallels changes major versions so much just so that they can rake in more and more upgrade fees from users. They're fast becoming the Adobe of the VM business. I paid for version 1 -- hated it compared with my previous experience with VMWare. Then paid for the first upgrade thinking that it would fix my problems, and it didn't. Fool me once...
I have VMWare Fusion running for my entire workday with no hiccups. I've been running it that way since it was released. I'm probably around 1000 full workdays of usage with nare a crash or a hiccup. Perhaps it may not match Parallels' performance for 3D gaming, but I could care less about that. What I care about is rock solid functionality. Why would I change when there's absolutely nothing wrong with my VMWare setup (and never has been)? I'll take stability over speed any day.
Honestly, I have no shares in VMWare and I don't work for them, I've just been a big fan of their products ever since the very first release of VMWare Workstation for Linux. I respect companies that take the time to release rock solid products and don't get caught up in fast release schedules and marketing hype.
yes I know there was a break there - but Parallels was the first (wasn't it) to come out after MS killed VPC for Mac - and it is the most similar in user experience (at least in my experience) to Virtual PC.
Virtual PC was pretty much unusable for anything but simple tasks. The reason is because it was emulating an Intel CPU on a PowerPC (before Apple made the switch to Intel). Which is far slower than emulating Intel on Intel.
Parallels was the first to market with an Intel on Intel VM for Mac OS X after Apple made the switch. VMWare had already been doing this for years on Windows and Linux, but didn't have a Mac OS X offering for a year or so after the switch. Which is where Parallels was able to gain traction in the Mac community. Parallels doesn't share any lineage with Virtual PC afaik.
So yeah, all the same idea (hardware virtualization), but different products.
I was forced to upgrade to Parallels 6 on July 20th, the date OS X Lion was released. Now I learn that if I would've waited 11 days after Lion was released I could have a version of Parallels optimized to run on Lion! How ridiculous! The free upgrade to Parallels 7 should at least be from July 20th, not August 1st!
They are a ripoff company. I was forced to upgrade as well to 6 on 7/25 in order for the product to work with Lion. How convenient of them to not tell me that by waiting less than a week I'd be entitled to a free upgrade.
I will NOT be paying for any more Parallels. I will switch to VMware first.
Seriously, you're trying to argue that Parallels is better on the basis of version numbers? You must be in marketing.
Are you kidding me? Did you actually read my post? NO YOU DID NOT.
Most of the reasons I see people "preferring" VMWare over Parallels is because of their experiences with old versions. They've never tried the new versions.
I've tried them all including VirtualBox and I like them all but feature for feature, pound for pound Parallels comes out on top and has stayed there since version 5. Sure there are some issues but these are so minuscule and I find more issues with VMWare than I ever have with Parallels.
I use Parallels to use applications that don't exist on the Mac, I need IE for a manky call system that we use at work, and I use Parallels to Ghost image Windows machines because CrossOver doesn't work. I cannot do the Ghost thing in VMWare because it's USB support isn't that flash.
I never once argued by numbers but then if you'd actually have read my post instead of glancing at it you'd have seen that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
I honestly think that Parallels changes major versions so much just so that they can rake in more and more upgrade fees from users. They're fast becoming the Adobe of the VM business. I paid for version 1 -- hated it compared with my previous experience with VMWare. Then paid for the first upgrade thinking that it would fix my problems, and it didn't. Fool me once...
I have VMWare Fusion running for my entire workday with no hiccups. I've been running it that way since it was released. I'm probably around 1000 full workdays of usage with nare a crash or a hiccup. Perhaps it may not match Parallels' performance for 3D gaming, but I could care less about that. What I care about is rock solid functionality. Why would I change when there's absolutely nothing wrong with my VMWare setup (and never has been)? I'll take stability over speed any day.
Honestly, I have no shares in VMWare and I don't work for them, I've just been a big fan of their products ever since the very first release of VMWare Workstation for Linux. I respect companies that take the time to release rock solid products and don't get caught up in fast release schedules and marketing hype.
The new versions actually contain NEW features or better versions of features that they had previously created.
For example Coherence has got stronger and stronger every version although Crystal Mode is actually a pain but that can be turned off. Hardware support is what I need and VMWare does not have that.
Mac OS X is not even thought of in VMWare and it barely runs Server but now with this version 7 of Parallels we get not only Server which ran so well we also get desktop which is great for those of us who do a lot of testing.
Yes your needs may be more simplistic and VMWare covers that but you can't claim a title is better than another simply because it meets YOUR needs and because of an experience with an old version. You have to look at the overall picture. Parallels has more development behind it, supports more features of Mac OS X and Intel than VMWare, supports VMWare images, and has far superior hardware interaction all for the same price as VMWare.
Parallels is a far better product and it's not just me that is saying it all the reviews seem to be pointing that way as well.
Virtual PC was pretty much unusable for anything but simple tasks. The reason is because it was emulating an Intel CPU on a PowerPC (before Apple made the switch to Intel). Which is far slower than emulating Intel on Intel.
Parallels was the first to market with an Intel on Intel VM for Mac OS X after Apple made the switch. VMWare had already been doing this for years on Windows and Linux, but didn't have a Mac OS X offering for a year or so after the switch. Which is where Parallels was able to gain traction in the Mac community. Parallels doesn't share any lineage with Virtual PC afaik.
So yeah, all the same idea (hardware virtualization), but different products.
That being said I did once setup a PXE boot server with GhostCast Server to deploy Windows to a number of machines for customers when the main group decided they needed their PC back. I did it on a G4 iBook and ironically it was only 7 minutes slower doing it this way that it was on the actual PC.
Updated successfully from v.5 last night, with Parallels using my Boot Camp partition. The ability to sandbox Lion was a clincher for me. I must use Snow Leopard since I have critical apps that won't run in Lion. So this is finally an opportunity for me to test the new OS.
Comments
I really like Parallels commercial products. Parallels Plesk Panel on the Linux servers is really a fantastic product. I used the Mac Desktop version a few years ago with Vista and it was pretty sluggish. I have several Windows machines available and I'm not space constrained either so I don't need to run any vitalization on my Macs. I haven't tried VMware.
Plesk is nice I agree. I actually do run Parallels and VMware both, simply so I am up on both products for support but for my on use I prefer VMWare to be honest.
One reason I like to run Windows in a VM is so I can simply have virgin copies to fire up every few weeks. Once set up and licensed with MS they can be moved, copied and deleted at will and it takes only a few minutes to replace one. Dealing with an actual PC is way more complex and time consuming. You can even move a VM to another Mac and the MS license remains intact which is great when replacing Macs with new ones.
Per NovaDevelopment "Owners of Parallels Desktop 4 for Mac are normally required to purchase a full version of Parallels Desktop 7 for Mac to upgrade. But this offer makes Parallels Desktop 7 for Mac available for only $49. That's over 35% off your normal upgrade price."
It's called progress and it's only every year. It's streaks ahead of VMWare and VirtualBox doesn't even come close to Parallels.
Parallels is great and I will definitely be upgrading to this version as I have done for every version since 2 because for what I use it for it is far superior to anything else on the market.
To each their own I guess...
I used Parallels through versions 1 and 2 since VMWare didn't have anything for Mac at that time, and just found it to be poor quality. During that time, one of my VMs got corrupted (wouldn't boot) and was unrepairable. Thankfully I didn't lose anything important. Also, direct sharing of files between the VM and Mac OS didn't work at all (I had to resort to using SMB file sharing across my network -- the problem with that solution being that it doesn't work when connected to a VPN). Lastly, the VoIP software I was using (Windows-only) had choppy audio with my USB headset under Parallels.
I tried contacting their customer support about my issues, but they were less than helpful.
Prior to that, I had been using VMWare on Linux since 1999 to do cross-platform software development and testing and it was always rock solid. After VMWare Fusion came out and I found it had the same level of quality as VMWare Workstation (plus it solved both the file sharing and USB headset problems), I never looked back.
What are the reasons people would decide to operate Lion virtually inside an already Lion OS?
As a software developer, it's nice to be able to install developer preview versions of Mac OS X (or other software) without jeopardizing your main system. Or for testing software on a number of different Mac OS X point releases.
To each their own I guess...
I used Parallels through versions 1 and 2 since VMWare didn't have anything for Mac at that time, and just found it to be poor quality. During that time, one of my VMs got corrupted (wouldn't boot) and was unrepairable. Thankfully I didn't lose anything important. Also, direct sharing of files between the VM and Mac OS didn't work at all (I had to resort to using SMB file sharing across my network -- the problem with that solution being that it doesn't work when connected to a VPN). Lastly, the VoIP software I was using (Windows-only) had choppy audio with my USB headset under Parallels.
I tried contacting their customer support about my issues, but they were less than helpful.
Prior to that, I had been using VMWare on Linux since 1999 to do cross-platform software development and testing and it was always rock solid. After VMWare Fusion came out and I found it had the same level of quality as VMWare Workstation (plus it solved both the file sharing and USB headset problems), I never looked back.
I don't want to sound like a douche here but are you serriously basing your preferences on versions that are over five years ago? VMWare sucked when it first came to the Mac also and basically is now so long in the tooth it's not even worth it anymore.
In terms of features and speed Parallels has slaughtered VMWare from version 5 and now we're up to version 7 whereas VMWare is version 3 still.
Seriously give Parallels another go, import your VMWare machine and see a world of difference. There are things I do with Parallels that VMWare just struggles to do namely with USB devices.
Looks nice, however I think that I will stick with VirtualBox. For the few times that I need Windows it works just fine, especially for the price!
amazes me how much you get for 'free' with virtualbox. great product.
Microsoft purchased Connectix so Parallels was never Virtual PC.
yes I know there was a break there - but Parallels was the first (wasn't it) to come out after MS killed VPC for Mac - and it is the most similar in user experience (at least in my experience) to Virtual PC.
so while it may have looked like I was suggesting that Parallels is the current version of what used to be Virtual PC - what I was really getting at is that I have been using Virtualization software for a long time - both on Mac OS and others with numerous different guest OS installs from many vendors.
What are the reasons people would decide to operate Lion virtually inside an already Lion OS?
Development of low-level utilities and drivers that might muck up the OS, for one.
It's useful to be able to sandbox Lion within Lion for testing stuff without worries of mucking up the real OS. Same reason I run other OSes in VMs, it's great Apple finally allow this.
Yes. If you download a new app from the Internet, and not sure if safe or not, run it in your Lion VM for a while.
I wonder when VMware will be updated. That is my weapon of choice.
I don't want to sound like a douche here but are you serriously basing your preferences on versions that are over five years ago? VMWare sucked when it first came to the Mac also and basically is now so long in the tooth it's not even worth it anymore.
In terms of features and speed Parallels has slaughtered VMWare from version 5 and now we're up to version 7 whereas VMWare is version 3 still.
Seriously give Parallels another go, import your VMWare machine and see a world of difference. There are things I do with Parallels that VMWare just struggles to do namely with USB devices.
Seriously, you're trying to argue that Parallels is better on the basis of version numbers? You must be in marketing.
By that logic, OpenSSL (the most widely used SSL implementation in the world) isn't worth a look because it just reached version 1.0 recently.
I honestly think that Parallels changes major versions so much just so that they can rake in more and more upgrade fees from users. They're fast becoming the Adobe of the VM business. I paid for version 1 -- hated it compared with my previous experience with VMWare. Then paid for the first upgrade thinking that it would fix my problems, and it didn't. Fool me once...
I have VMWare Fusion running for my entire workday with no hiccups. I've been running it that way since it was released. I'm probably around 1000 full workdays of usage with nare a crash or a hiccup. Perhaps it may not match Parallels' performance for 3D gaming, but I could care less about that. What I care about is rock solid functionality. Why would I change when there's absolutely nothing wrong with my VMWare setup (and never has been)? I'll take stability over speed any day.
Honestly, I have no shares in VMWare and I don't work for them, I've just been a big fan of their products ever since the very first release of VMWare Workstation for Linux. I respect companies that take the time to release rock solid products and don't get caught up in fast release schedules and marketing hype.
yes I know there was a break there - but Parallels was the first (wasn't it) to come out after MS killed VPC for Mac - and it is the most similar in user experience (at least in my experience) to Virtual PC.
Virtual PC was pretty much unusable for anything but simple tasks. The reason is because it was emulating an Intel CPU on a PowerPC (before Apple made the switch to Intel). Which is far slower than emulating Intel on Intel.
Parallels was the first to market with an Intel on Intel VM for Mac OS X after Apple made the switch. VMWare had already been doing this for years on Windows and Linux, but didn't have a Mac OS X offering for a year or so after the switch. Which is where Parallels was able to gain traction in the Mac community. Parallels doesn't share any lineage with Virtual PC afaik.
So yeah, all the same idea (hardware virtualization), but different products.
I was forced to upgrade to Parallels 6 on July 20th, the date OS X Lion was released. Now I learn that if I would've waited 11 days after Lion was released I could have a version of Parallels optimized to run on Lion! How ridiculous! The free upgrade to Parallels 7 should at least be from July 20th, not August 1st!
They are a ripoff company. I was forced to upgrade as well to 6 on 7/25 in order for the product to work with Lion. How convenient of them to not tell me that by waiting less than a week I'd be entitled to a free upgrade.
I will NOT be paying for any more Parallels. I will switch to VMware first.
GREEDY COMPANY! YOU SUCK PARALLELS!!!!!
Could I run Snow Leopard (and therefore Rosetta apps) with a Mac VM in Parallels??
Physically, probably. I would imagine it's possible.
You just can't virtualize Snow Leopard (client) legally. Server, yes, but not client.
Seriously, you're trying to argue that Parallels is better on the basis of version numbers? You must be in marketing.
Are you kidding me? Did you actually read my post? NO YOU DID NOT.
Most of the reasons I see people "preferring" VMWare over Parallels is because of their experiences with old versions. They've never tried the new versions.
I've tried them all including VirtualBox and I like them all but feature for feature, pound for pound Parallels comes out on top and has stayed there since version 5. Sure there are some issues but these are so minuscule and I find more issues with VMWare than I ever have with Parallels.
I use Parallels to use applications that don't exist on the Mac, I need IE for a manky call system that we use at work, and I use Parallels to Ghost image Windows machines because CrossOver doesn't work. I cannot do the Ghost thing in VMWare because it's USB support isn't that flash.
I never once argued by numbers but then if you'd actually have read my post instead of glancing at it you'd have seen that.
I honestly think that Parallels changes major versions so much just so that they can rake in more and more upgrade fees from users. They're fast becoming the Adobe of the VM business. I paid for version 1 -- hated it compared with my previous experience with VMWare. Then paid for the first upgrade thinking that it would fix my problems, and it didn't. Fool me once...
I have VMWare Fusion running for my entire workday with no hiccups. I've been running it that way since it was released. I'm probably around 1000 full workdays of usage with nare a crash or a hiccup. Perhaps it may not match Parallels' performance for 3D gaming, but I could care less about that. What I care about is rock solid functionality. Why would I change when there's absolutely nothing wrong with my VMWare setup (and never has been)? I'll take stability over speed any day.
Honestly, I have no shares in VMWare and I don't work for them, I've just been a big fan of their products ever since the very first release of VMWare Workstation for Linux. I respect companies that take the time to release rock solid products and don't get caught up in fast release schedules and marketing hype.
The new versions actually contain NEW features or better versions of features that they had previously created.
For example Coherence has got stronger and stronger every version although Crystal Mode is actually a pain but that can be turned off. Hardware support is what I need and VMWare does not have that.
Mac OS X is not even thought of in VMWare and it barely runs Server but now with this version 7 of Parallels we get not only Server which ran so well we also get desktop which is great for those of us who do a lot of testing.
Yes your needs may be more simplistic and VMWare covers that but you can't claim a title is better than another simply because it meets YOUR needs and because of an experience with an old version. You have to look at the overall picture. Parallels has more development behind it, supports more features of Mac OS X and Intel than VMWare, supports VMWare images, and has far superior hardware interaction all for the same price as VMWare.
Parallels is a far better product and it's not just me that is saying it all the reviews seem to be pointing that way as well.
Virtual PC was pretty much unusable for anything but simple tasks. The reason is because it was emulating an Intel CPU on a PowerPC (before Apple made the switch to Intel). Which is far slower than emulating Intel on Intel.
Parallels was the first to market with an Intel on Intel VM for Mac OS X after Apple made the switch. VMWare had already been doing this for years on Windows and Linux, but didn't have a Mac OS X offering for a year or so after the switch. Which is where Parallels was able to gain traction in the Mac community. Parallels doesn't share any lineage with Virtual PC afaik.
So yeah, all the same idea (hardware virtualization), but different products.
That being said I did once setup a PXE boot server with GhostCast Server to deploy Windows to a number of machines for customers when the main group decided they needed their PC back. I did it on a G4 iBook and ironically it was only 7 minutes slower doing it this way that it was on the actual PC.
Parallels would be so fast it's not funny.