Parallels Desktop for OS X Reviewed

phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica has put up a great review of the first full release of Parallels' virtualization software for OS X, Parallels Desktop 1.0. From the article: 'Move over emulation, virtualization is in and it's hotter than two Jessica Albas wresting the devil himself in a pit of molten steel. It's no contest, virtualization has it all: multiple operating systems running on the same machine at nearly the full speed of the host's processor with each system seamlessly networking with the next. Add to that the fact that it's cheaper than getting a new machine and you have the guaranteed latest craze. Not even the Hula Hoop can stop this one.'"

Comments

Re:Games?

[mjwx]

Sorry to break this to you but Apple is the biggest problem in gaining more market share for Mac's. I'll explain.

Apple insist on running their closed proprieatary OS on their "Authorised" Hardware, when this is compared to a closed propratry OS running on any x86 or x64 compatable hardware you can get, the closed hardware senario is not very apealing to people except to those who have more money than sense.
 
The second reason is that Mac OS X is not very networkable in a domain enviroment, CxO's who run mac only enviroments wonder why the milk behind the fridge lasts longer than a Mac admin, Just look at the amount of errors in the system.log file.
 
The third is that SW development is only carried out by Apple "approved" developers where MS or Linux development can be carried out by everyone.
 
  Now ask these questions.
1) XP is needed for games and production and If a mac can do that, doesnt it just become expensive hardware (You pay for the brand not the HW).
2) Who in their right mind (be it business or home) would buy two OS's to run on the same hardware.
 
For games a Native OS is far superior no matter how thin the virtualisation client is and for games XP is needed, Accept it like the rest of us.
 
Rabid fanboyism != usability.