Parallels 3.0 Announced, 3D Graphics Included

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF writes "For some time Mac users have been waiting to see who would bring 3D graphics to a Windows emulation/virtualization solution under OS X. It looks like Parallels is going to be the winner. They have announced an RC of Parallels 3.0, with the final to be available 'in a few weeks.' For anyone else tired of Bootcamp or rebooting to play a Windows game, it look like the solution is finally here; I'm not counting out VMWare entirely. Obviously it will depend on how soon they can catch up, but there is some serious first-mover advantage here for Parallels."

Comments

hmm

[pak9rabid]

Somehow I doubt virtualized 3d-acceleration will be able to even come close to native 3d-acceleration..

Re:hmm

[falcon5768]

reportedly, it is pretty close, but like VMWare limited in games that will be certified to run good on it.

Re:hmm

[LiquidCoooled]

Why?
Of all the elements in the system, the graphics interface once shouldn't run slower.

Its just mainly copying data around rather than executable assembly instruction translation/manipulation.
A block of allocated memory can be passed directly to the card without any messing.

Virtualisation is difficult because you are trying to act as middleman between two different operating systems with different ways to do things. However for the graphics, both those operating systems need to already speak the same language to talk with a graphics card, the memory is laid out the same, the commands are the same and the way of talking to it is the same.

Re:hmm

[Lally Singh]

Connectix used to do this (in v3 or so) for the mac. Emulating an x86 CPU on PPC. Basically, they just provided a pass-through OpenGL driver that hit the native driver & hardware.

For native CPU & a pass-through OpenGL stack, it should be pretty close to native speed. Only concerns are:
1. Direct3D/DirectX (what's it called these days?) -- emulating that or converting it to the native graphics driver isn't trivial. Or even a direct mapping.
2. Feature differences between implementations of drivers between the mac & windows. My guess is that most of the big boys use common code in between (especially now) with build setups & wrappers for each platform. But, who knows.

Re:hmm

[ajanp]

I'm not really sure at this stage it's about having virtual 3d-acceletaion == native 3d-acceleration. In the same way that Linux users can use Wine or Cedega to at least play windows games on a Linux OS, Parallels 3.0 will at least allow Mac users play windows games on their OS X.

Up to now, Parallels hasn't supported 3D graphics acceleration, which has made it unsuitable for gaming. New in this release is 3D support for OpenGL and DirectX graphics software, which enables users to run Windows games from inside Parallels without having to reboot. If you want to play them in all their fully supported windows glory, you can always dual-boot, but if Parallels can provide a quality platform to play windows games on, then all the better. And with time and future releases, support for 3d gfx acceleration will only get better, hopefully reducing the insane hardware requirements that are likely needed to run more modern games. At the very least, it's the first step in the right direction so that Mac users can at least play windows games within OS X.

Re:hmm

[AchiIIe]

Keep in mind they are not reimplementing the methods, they are simply providing a wrapper.

Native operation:
  Application -> (call to) -> DirectX/OpenGL library -> (call to) -> Native driver -> (low level call to) -> Graphic card

Parallels:
  Application -> DirectX/OpenGL -> Parallels driver -> Parallels host (fixes coordinates) -> Native driver - Graphic card

Thus, in a way, you don't really decrease "bandwith", you decrease "latency" which is very minimal. I would guess no more a few handful instructions.

Re:hmm

[Khyber]

Umm, the graphics interface will run slower when virtualized in any way. OpenGL - direct to hardware calls. D3D = OS overhead. Virtualization of OpenGL would be much easier and much faster, while having not one but now TWO layers with Parallels put in the mix is going to create some MASSIVE overhead. Graphical performance will drop, as my pal noticed on his MacBook.

Native booting into the OS is the only real way to get it done, unless you're doing something you can easily wait on (like post-process rendering for movies)

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow, I doubt you know anything about virtualization or 3D acceleration.

Re:hmm

[coolgeek]

This will only be of use to the casual gamer, or for games that don't have a lot of high-speed interaction. As a Parallels user myself, I think I'll still reboot into XP for playing BF2. I need every last ounce of my GPU to run my display at 2048x1536 with all rendering settings set to High.

Re:hmm

[xero314]

I'm afraid you might be confusing emulation with virtualization. In theory virtualization should add little to zero overhead. Virtualizing certain aspects such as memory access or CPU usage will have some overhead but virtualizing GPU usage should be negligible. We'll see how well they did when it is released but I would be it will run most software at near direct boot performance. Remember virtualization is Native, it will still be using the same Native machine calls that would be used with direct booting.

Re:hmm

[Khyber]

Virtualization presents no overhead when chips with that technology built in and enabled. Lots of machines do not come with this turned on by default, so naturally they're going to suffer a massive performance hit. We had this problem constantly at the HP repair depot - we'd get commercial line laptops back with complaints of "Virtualization is too slow/does not work on this machine." Quick check in the BIOS - oh, look, it's been disabled. Eventually it happened so often that HP support had to tell them to check their BIOS settings when they called in - saved us lots of wasted time replacing the entire logic board when all it took was a BIOS setting to change. It also made many top-dog IT managers very unhappy that it was something so trivial. I bet lots of people lost their jobs over such a simple oversight.

Most people aren't even aware there's an option for that in the BIOS if the chip supports it. If you run it on a chip that doesn't come with virtualization extensions, you WILL suffer quite a performance hit.

Re:hmm

[xouumalperxe]

DirectX is a large set of libraries, with Direct3D being the graphics library in the package, with DirectInput being the input module, etc. Some games (id software games come to mind) use DirectX for a number of things, while still using OpenGL for graphics. The only confusion about the name is in your head, really :)

Regarding performance, it seems to me that even if there *is* a performance hit (and there probably will be), the purpose here is not getting the world's best gaming rig. I don't think anyone here is convinced any product in the Apple lineup will ever be that. The purpose is getting enough performance to run games decently without hiccups getting in the way of your fun. And I think it quite likely they'll succeed in that.

Re:hmm

[ceoyoyo]

Yes. Most gamers. You didn't think hardcore gamers who need "every last ounce of my GPU to run my display at 2048x1536 with all rendering settings set to High" are the majority, did you?

I think I'll go download the demo and see if it can run Pirates now.

Re:hmm

[Hes Nikke]

Connectix used to do this (in v3 or so) for the mac. Emulating an x86 CPU on PPC. Basically, they just provided a pass-through OpenGL driver that hit the native driver & hardware.

Close. It wasn't OpenGL, it was GLIDE. and version 2. (click here if you want to flash back to heady days of decent II and Dark Forces II)

Re:hmm

[Courageous]

Virtualization presents no overhead when chips with that technology built in and enabled.

Don't know where you get that idea.

VMWare, which is practically synonymous with "virtualization" basically doesn't benefit much at all from having VT enabled in the BIOS. Most of the overhead is associated with I/O, can be as much as 50% of the bandwidth and 65% of the latency, and for which turning on VT will help not at all. Don't believe me? Just run a database benchmark, like the Postgrest OSDB test. Or just try ftp'ing large files to/from a virtual machine.

As for compute, the overhead is 5% at most, WITHOUT VT AT ALL.

VT has practically no affect on virtualization performance.

The main benefit of VT is that if you enable it in the BIOS, then Xen and technologies like it can virtualize non-paravirtualized operating systems.

C//

Re:hmm

[Khyber]

Umm, read VMware's own announcement that in three years they EXPECT to remove all overhead in virtualization? Oh, look. I still happen to have the page bookmarked. Here you go.

Re:hmm

[Courageous]

What they plan to do in three years, with technology not yet fielded, and what is true today are different things.

You were talking in the present, about current BIOS settings. Chances are, your clients experiencing problems with virtualization performance didn't have enough memory. The VT settings are hardly relevant to VMWare deployments today. Virtually all performance problems with virtualization can be traced to insufficient memory or insufficient storage fabric speed.

C//

Re:hmm

[Khyber]

My clients, with their virtualization machines, had the maximum amount of RAM in their laptops - 2 to 4 gigs, depending upon the model. It most certainly was not a lack of memory. 4 gigs of PC2-4200/5300 is pretty beastly. Hell, I only have one gig and running two VMs of BeOs and Windows under Linux works fine when I have the virtualization on my processsor enabled in BIOS, without those extensions enabled the performance drops about 20% - still usable considering the small tasks that I do (very minor gaming, web browsing, music playing, etc.) but when it comes to intensive testing across multiple OSes at once to determine compatibility across each OS you wish to test, those extensions come in handy. There's a reason Intel is putting hardware-assist virtualization instructions in their processors.

Re:hmm

[kscguru]

I'm quite curious what virtualization platform you are using, where enabling VT/SVM in BIOS makes such a difference. It's certainly not VMware, because current hardware virtualization runs slower than the state-of-the-art in software. AMD and Intel have new chips with second-generation hardware virtualization (which DO make that much of a difference), but you can't buy those yet. I do suggest reading the paper linked above - it's a great description of where all the virtualization overheads actually are.

Re:hmm

[Courageous]

If you have 2 gigs of ram in a machine, but then install a second OS, if that OS plus the primary OS each have memory utilization profiles greater than one gig, the machine will start to swap. Performance will drop catastrophically. "20% performance boost" for VMWare is inconsistent with both what VMWare has said publicly and what my lab findings verify. For one, with or without VT enabled, VMWare is 95% efficient for CPU. VT doesn't improve I/O at all. Which virtualization technology are you using? Which benchmarks have you run?

My findings are for VMWare ESX (which of course, will not readily so much as install on a laptop), using Dell 1955 blades (Intel Woodcrest 5160 CPUs... which offer VT). I've validated with the OSDB benchmark, SPEC int/fp, and a variety TCP/IP benchmarks as well as an NFS benchmark. My conclusions to date have been firmly this: CPU efficiency doesn't matter (VMWare already 95% efficient), and I/O can use a lot of help (50% inefficient for network bandwidth, 65% latency hit). Xen does better on this last, but that's a different matter.

The other issue is, of course, storage. If one is using the host OS and guest OS at the same time, disk performance will be effectively 50% for each, being that there is only one drive to subdivide. That can hurt ya where it counts.

C//

Re:hmm

[SilentChris]

That isn't entirely true. There's a VMware research paper out there that says turning on those extensions doesn't necessarily increase speed (and in fact sometimes decreases it). Do a Google search for it.

Re:hmm

[Khyber]

I run virtualization of different hardware architectures (mainly in my development of a PS2 emulator.) Software virtualization of software will always be fairly efficient without VT. Try getting that kind of performance when you virtualize a totally different hardware architecture. ;)

As for benchmarks? So far, since I'm emulating a game platform, all I have to work with is the FPS and I/O readouts thru the debugger. I've got Shadow of the Colossus (one of the most process-intensive games I know of for the PS2) up to a measly 6 FPS when my original efforts only resulted in 2 FPS (That's still better than the current top-notch PS2 emulator does with the same game, BTW, which only gets 3 FPS on my system. But, this emulator is written specifically to play SotC, and no other game, so my little brag becomes pointless.) Yea, they're the poor-man's type of benchmark, and probably hold no weight, but when I see progress, it's noticable. Wanna know something really funky? In SotC, the software is written partially backwards. Not backwards as in everything is reversed, but backwards as in the game uses it's own software-based timer instead of timing to the hardware. (And people wonder why some scenes in the game only manage to pull 10-15 FPS. That software timer sucks resources down faster than a starving baby suckling it's mother's teat.)

VMware Fusion 2?

[mrseigen]

The second release of VMWare Fusion had D3D8 acceleration under XP and it was released a few months ago. It's not like Parallels is first to this party.

Re:VMware Fusion 2?

[Queer Boy]

VMWare has ZERO grasp of the Mac market. Their application is a mess and scatters files all over the drive. I used the free beta of VMWare for like, 2 days before I decided to buy Parallels.

Re:VMware Fusion 2?

[ditoa]

Because it "scatters files" you write it off and buy another product? Its a beta, it is trivial to tidy up the files an application uses when you consider how complex a virtualization application is. Seems a bit gung ho to me. Not saying Parallels isn't a great application as well, its just you are much to quick to disregard an application for a superficial reason in a beta product.

Re:VMware Fusion 2?

[Tickletaint]

It's a good indication VMware's developers don't really "get" the Mac. Sometimes, you really can judge a book by its cover.

Re:VMware Fusion 2?

[mrsteveman1]

They don't "Get" the Mac? It's a platform, with a well thought out OS stack, a good interface, and various smart features....what is it that developers are missing?

If you demand that developers do things significantly different on the Mac from every other platform, they will get tired of it. There seem to be a large number of people who want the Mac to remain a minority.

Re:VMware Fusion 2?

[qzulla]

Please list these files and locations.

Thx.

qz

Re:VMware Fusion 2?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that the VMWare developers 'get' the Mac a lot better than the Parallels developers. Parallels can't even grasp the concept that a Mac OS X app is only ever meant to have a single icon present in the dock.

History repeating itself

[LiquidCoooled]

Reading about all this virtualisation and emulation stuff reminds me of the shapeshifter days on the amiga.
Emulating a mac went from a slow and laborious process to something almost realtime.

The price of this seems a bit harsh though, it pretty much doubles the retail cost of Windows, are Mac users that desperate for this functionality that its worth it?

Re:History repeating itself

[nine-times]

are Mac users that desperate for this functionality that its worth it?

Most of them aren't. They'll either find a way to get Parallels+Windows for free, or they'll live without. That's not to say there won't be enough Mac users (which is to say, "enough to make a profit), but most Mac users probably won't bother.

Re:History repeating itself

[virgil_disgr4ce]

are Mac users that desperate for this functionality that its worth it? To add my two cents here, I doubt many people are "desperate." But given that my MacBookPro is, far and away, the best laptop I've ever owned or used (and in many ways the best piece of any hardware I've ever owned), it's a relatively small price to pay for a great platform that does pretty much anything I can think of needing or wanting to do--and importantly--does it in a well-designed, well-thought-out, organized way that reduces the amount of effort on my part.

That being said, $80 still irks me!

Re:History repeating itself

[Sloppy]

Emulating a mac went from a slow and laborious process to something almost realtime.

Almost realtime? My 68060 Amiga ran MacOS faster than any 68k Mac ever made. Who needs a Quadra when I have an Amiga 3000 with CyberStorm?

Of course, I was salivating over the 604e-based Macs at the time. But we'll ignore that ignominious fact, while I brag about how much faster my obsolete computer was than someone else's obsolete computer. ;-)

Re:History repeating itself

[xero314]

The price of this seems a bit harsh though, it pretty much doubles the retail cost of Windows, are Mac users that desperate for this functionality that its worth it? I don't think you have your math quite right. Parallels cost $79.99 retail while Vista cost up to $399.99, and at least $199.99. This is not doubling the cost. On the other hand, XP is free for most people since there are so many unused XP licenses sitting around, or even better win 2k (which is what I run in one of my parallels installs). You also have to spread the cost of parallels between each of it's installs, since a number of users, such as my self, also have a couple flavors of linux running in it. In theory parallels can be used to run any x86 OS, though I haven't tried to prove that myself.

Re:History repeating itself

[jellomizer]

Where can you get a copy of WIndows for $80.00? Or if you Upgrade right now $40.00 I know you linux guys don't pay for anything. But $80.00 is a fair price for being able to run at the same time Mac Applications aside of Windows Applications.

For people who need to run Windows apps this is cheaper then getting another computer. Much less of a hassle then using boot camp and booting back and forth. $80.00 is not much for the value of Parallels and with Windows Licenses costing over $160 a license is is only 50% of the cost of windows not doubled.

Re:History repeating itself

[Anonymous Coward]

No Mac user of whom I'm aware has any need or desire to approach within Class A range of a PC, or of a PC user. Plain, ugly, simple-minded folk, they. Uncreative to the bone. Couldn't draw their way out of a blank sheet of paper. Not a one of those collar-popping pink polos has probably ever heard of MSTRKRFT or LVHRD or shot speedballs in the bathroom of K&M.

Parallels is useful, then, as a means of separating the wheat from the chaff, the saved from the oblivious, call it what you will; we prefer to describe it as us real Mac users from you beige hordes of switcheurs.

Re:History repeating itself

[nbritton]

"The price of this seems a bit harsh though"

You've never used Parallels have you?

Re:History repeating itself

[shmlco]

You can also get the Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2B for System Builders version from Amazon and save yourself $115 over the standard version ($154 vs $269). The existence of the system builder edition is one of Microsoft's better kept secrets. I think there's a Vista SB version as well.

Re:History repeating itself

[pvera]

Because the best windows PC I have ever used is this Mac Book Pro. OSX is just the icing on the cake.

My license of Parallels was $79, and I had a retail license of XP, no need to purchase a full license of XP. When 3.0 comes out, I qualify for a competitive upgrade, so it will be $50 ($40 if I order before launch date).

When I get a blue screen of death in XP, all I lose is VS.net, VSS, SQL Server management studio and whatever browser windows I had open. Everything else in the machine is OSX and running fine.

When my boss gets a call from a customer about technology X, whatever the hell it means, he knows there's two of us that are ready to hit on it, be it Windows, OS X or something that runs as a BSD/Linux program. Before that he would have had to get defensive the second the conversation strayed away from Windows.

My previous work laptop was a Dell. It was a cheaply built, unrealiable, pathetic piece of dog shit. It was sad sad, because I only purchase Dell servers and I couldn't believe that the same company that sold me those super reliable servers also sold that horrible laptop. I am glad that I was given the flexibility to order two a Mac Book Pro as a replacement.

The end result of having parallels is the ability of carrying one laptop that, right out of the box, is already running two operating systems without rebooting. Then you can start and stop additional operating systems, each in its own VM, without disturbing the host machine.

Re:History repeating itself

[autophile]

are Mac users that desperate for this functionality that its worth it?

To add my two cents here, I doubt many people are "desperate."

I think the OP meant "disparate." :)

--Rob

Re:History repeating itself

[Jesus_666]

When I'll buy my MBP (holding out for Leopard) it's going to be the most powerful machine I own. If I can get near-native-performance Windows gaming on it for eighty bucks all I have to say is: I'll buy that for a dollar. Eighty, even.

Re:History repeating itself

[mollymoo]

I think you need the full retail version of XP for Parallels, an OEM version won't do.

Re:History repeating itself

[Bert64]

Yes i remember shapeshifter well...
It wasn't so much emulating, as virtualizing. The macs of the day and the amigas shared the same processors, the amiga had custom chips for video/sound which macs often didnt, and they used different firmware. Shapeshifter really just loaded up the mac firmware inside of a virtualization environment. Speed was often the same or slightly faster than a real mac using the same CPU, although you could get amigas with the 68060 chip which wasn't available for the mac (having moved to PPC) so m68k based apps were sometimes faster on the amiga than any real mac.
Video was the biggest issue, since the native amiga chipset was completely unlike anything a mac would use, but an amiga with a video card would easily cure that.

Re:History repeating itself

[Bert64]

I did the same thing, amiga with 68060 emulating a mac...
A lot of apps hadn't been fully ported at the time, and significant parts of macos were still not ported either, so in many cases the 68060 outperformed the ppc based macs of the time too.
Also remember that, the 68060's raw performance is often better than the first revision of the powerpc chips (the 601).

Re:History repeating itself

[TClevenger]

Nope, I'm using OEM copies I bought from NewEgg on two MBP's running Parallels. Works great.

Re:History repeating itself

[jZnat]

Linux guys can spend more on the applications because they didn't have to spend over $1000 on a copy of Vista and Office 2007 to get basic functionality. ;)

Re:History repeating itself

[shmlco]

An OEM version that checks for a specific vendor's HW (e.g. Dell) won't do, but the System Builder version works just fine.

Re:History repeating itself

[Anonymous Coward]

$80 + the actual cost of a retail (non-upgrade) version of windows which could be a lot more is what the person above was talking about.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

uh boot camp still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

why in the world would anyone run emulation when they can run Windows natively with bootcamp. If you're going to play games you would obviously want the most speed you can get. I bought a mac, but I'm 98% in the windows. I only use mac to test web based apps in safari. For people like me or for gamers, I don't see why you would ever use paralells emulation. The speed cost is just too high.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[geniusj]

If they are able to get performance within 10 or 15% of native, I'd be impressed and happy. Sometimes you just want to play a casual game and don't plan on playing for an extended period which makes rebooting a pain. Since Parallels allows you to boot off of your bootcamp partition in a VM, it'll be nice to be able to do both.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[smclean]

The answer is some people don't like running Windows. You didn't know that?

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to play games you would obviously want the most speed you can get.

Not really. If I can get 30 FPS in the games I want to play, I'll be happy. A few extra FPS that are ultimately irrelevant aren't worth a reboot, especially into Windows.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Daniel Dvorkin]

why in the world would anyone run emulation when they can run Windows natively with bootcamp. If you're going to play games you would obviously want the most speed you can get. I bought a mac, but I'm 98% in the windows. I only use mac to test web based apps in safari. For people like me or for gamers, I don't see why you would ever use paralells emulation. The speed cost is just too high.

For you, Boot Camp makes sense. Me, I'm in the opposite situation -- I do almost all my work in OS X, but write apps which occasionally have to be tested with Windows. So Parallels is the perfect solution. I'm not really concerned about squeezing every ounce of speed out of Windows because I don't spend much time in it; I just want to drop into it every few days to make sure that what I'm doing works, preferably without having to reboot my machine.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[wal9001]

I'm not sure why this is modded down, because it's certainly true. You may not be able to run state of the art games too well, but if all you're trying to do is run a FPS from a few years ago and can do so under Parallels then I see no reason not to.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[frdmfghtr]

why in the world would anyone run emulation when they can run Windows natively with bootcamp. If you're going to play games you would obviously want the most speed you can get. I bought a mac, but I'm 98% in the windows. I only use mac to test web based apps in safari. For people like me or for gamers, I don't see why you would ever use paralells emulation. The speed cost is just too high.

Because there are times where I want to work in Windows *and* Mac simultaneously. I can run a Win2K guest OS with my campus Novell client and have access to all the networked apps that I need to use, and still use my Mac apps.

As you said, for people like you or gamers, Boot Camp is the way to go. "You and gamers" are not the majority of computer users, thus that is why "the rest of us" who need it will use Parallels.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[iThink Therefore iMa]

The primary reason as to why someone would rather run emulation than BootCamp is the reboot time in my opinion. If you are capable of running 3D applications through Parallels at a decent speed, why bother rebooting your computer, waiting for it to load, logging back in, then reloading the application except for the most hungry of applications?

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

why in the world would anyone run emulation when they can run Windows natively with bootcamp.

First, it is virtualization, not emulation. I run Parallels because I need to use both Windows and OS X native applications to get my daily work. Rebooting 30 or 40 times a day would be less than productive. Also, maybe you're not understanding the workflow of many mac users. I don't shutdown my computer and I don't reboot. I rarely ever shutdown about 5 major applications. I am a casual gamer. I used to go to LAN parties with my laptop and play Warcraft 3 and amaze all the Windows users by not bothering to shut down Photoshop, InDesign, Firefox, and all the rest of my applications, because OS X's multitasking was up to it. I'm sure not going to shut down all my applications and close all my files and reboot my machine, just to play some game. That would be a huge pain in the ass. I will, however, boot up a Windows session in a window and play it there.

Most gamers are casual gamers, like me. We don't care if it is running 50fps instead of 40fps. We don't care if the textures are all at the highest settings. We just want to play a few games and have fun without a hassle. If Parallels will let me do that, I'd shell out for it. I can afford it. I'm a computer geek; we tend to be well paid. I say I would pay for it because, likely, my company will be buying my upgrade for me anyway.

I bought a mac, but I'm 98% in the windows. I only use mac to test web based apps in safari.

The advantages of using OS X as the host OS are numerous, if you're the kind of person willing to learn new ways of doing things. It is an added level of security, and running OS X apps natively allows for more interaction between apps and more customization of features for all apps.

For people like me or for gamers, I don't see why you would ever use paralells emulation. The speed cost is just too high.

For games that don't use 3D acceleration, I don't even normally notice any speed difference at all between parallels and bootcamp. The limiting factor in all cases is memory, so running Parallels is like having .5G less memory. With the notice graphics card support, I doubt the speed difference will bug me at all. Like I said, I (like most gamers) am a casual gamer. In any case, claiming the speed cost is too high is a bit premature until it is actually tested, don't you think?

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

I should have made my post more clear. I think Dvorkin is the only one who got it. What I meant to say is that for people who are primarily in Windows for development work or whatever (eg myself), or who are real gamers (3D intensive), the speed cost is just too high to not use bootcamp. If you are usually on a Mac (half my user base is which is why I have these fwunky cool triple bootin' mac beast), then I could see why you would want to use Parallels unless you're doing intense 3D games (in which case I'd highly recommend you boot into windows). But for people in my situation (and there are a lot of us), boot camp makes the most sense. Apple's incredible sales since last year aren't because people are running the Mac OS. I'd venture a guess that a large percentage of people who bought macs over the last year did to use windows but have the option to run Mac OS. For companies like where I work, their cost savings skyrocketed. Hundreds of us had separate Mac and PC's because our user base was mixed. Now we buy one machine at a great price and can triple boot even. veerrry niicee

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[__aaclcg7560]

It's the only way to run Minesweeper and Mac OS X at the same time. :P

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

lol thanks for the obvious sparky. please see my response above. I was hoping it was understood that I meant was people in my situation would choose boot camp clearly, but it was probably my fault for hoping that was understood. Your response is understood but obvious. As far as speed gains, I can't imagine you think there is no noticeable difference in speed. Virtualization still has to go through a separate layer.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Paul Pierce]

Parallels at work has been a perfect solution for me. MacBook Pro vs. a new Dell was easy to answer once Parallels came out. We also use the Novell client, and lots of our work is on the network drives. That and a couple of other applications prevented me from going straight OS X. I now use coherence, have no problems, and is the best Operating System(s) I've ever used.

There really shouldn't be a debate any longer about emulation vs. Boot Camp, seeing that the same install can now be both. VMware Fusion made a step forward with 3D and Direct X 8.0, but I tried running it and the drag-and-drop didn't work well, and I ended up using the Parallels Transporter to convert it back to Parallels.

My Dock now consists of OS X apps and XP apps, and you can't even distinguish the two. Now with the new 'SmartSelect' the two OS's will appear almost entirely as one. It's like Bill sleeping under Steve's bed, still separate, but close enough for me.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[bl8n8r]

rtfa? "OpenGL and DirectX games and apps in a virtual machine on your Mac, without shutting down OS X!".

The difference is you don't use software rendering. This can be a boon for cad that isn't as demanding as gaming, but still needs hardware gl to perform well. Apparently Quake 4 is running "full speed" whatever that means, so maybe removing the software rendering layer takes a large chunk of overhead away.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[earnest murderer]

I run XP in Parallels all day long some of that work is fairly processor intensive. Sure it's not as fast as native but it's close enough I've wasted more time reading this thread than I will all week waiting on Parallels. For that matter it's close enough most people would never notice. And I didn't have to buy a second machine.

Hell, even if the penalty was something like a quarter as fast I'd still use it. That's way better than quitting what I'm doing and rebooting. Now that I think of it, even if it were a quarter as fast, that was a perfectly good machine a few years ago which was perfectly fine for running Windows XP and gaming on.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[mrbooze]

Not all games require all the speed you can get. Not even all new games. And if someone wants to play some old favorite windows game the performance on a modern machine should be more than adequate even when virtualized.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Sloppy]

At work I sometimes use Parallels to test web pages with MSIE. Type up some seemingly totally standards-compliant CSS or javascript in SubEthaEdit, save, mouse over to the memory-sucking Parallels window, click reload, stare in amazement at the unanticipated behavior, curse and snarl, pull out some hair, email the boss to ask if things really are required to work with MSIE 6, pull out some more hair, etc... all w/out rebooting.

About the only bad thing I can say about Parallels, is that it isn't curing baldness.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[WhiteWolf666]

1. You don't know what the speed cost is. It could be minimal, or it could be significant. You have no evidence either way; if it manages to pass most instructions through to the host OS it could be very fast. Wine, for example, is quite fast, but there's a good deal more overhead in Parallels.

2. You're not the target market for this app. You only use OS X for Safari. Most Mac users aren't like you; we primarily use OS X, and are "forced" to use Windows occassionally for one app or game. This covers most switchers too; how do I know? We just switched our company, and everyone has the choice of OS X or XP. Guess what? OS X has won out on every user, and no one uses boot camp. Just Parallels.

3. Most people are willing to exchange some speed for security. Staying in OS X means you know that your computer will always work; no worrying about viruses and the like.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[thestuckmud]

Why would I want to run in emulation, you ask?

Because I am already loathe to load any software that includes copy protection crapware on my computer. If I could, I would load and run my games in separate virtual machines. That way, I wouldn't worry about rogue ring 0 device drivers and who know what else affecting my system.

Of course that same copy protection junk will probably choke when run in a virtual environment. C'est la guerre!

BTW, is it still paranoia if they are really trying to get me?

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[amohat]

As others have said, so you can run all the other little windows apps in an incredibly convenient way, right inside your OSX session.

Clearly, you don't use it, need it, understand it.

For example:

I have a Treo 700p and a little windows only app, PDAnet, that lets me connect to the net through my Sprint data connection. Works great.

I have to connect to a few machines using another win-only app, radmin. Boom, so easy.

I have a Dreamweaver plugin that doesn't work on Intel Macs yet from WebAssist.

Fuck games. The massive amount of other Win-only software out there is now all mine for the using and it runs perfectly and easily.

WinXP in Parallels opens and closes so quickly and easily, it's almost instant boot. It is an amazing piece of software, and I'm from a PC background working with VMware, which was/is groundbreaking itself.

And at $80 it's much cheaper than VMware Workstation. Though I wish it could run clones of OSX for testing, so it's sort of apples vs oranges.

Don't knock it, dude, it rocks.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[angrytuna]

I'll second that. We have a windows RDC dedicated box where I work for testing web apps in IE, but lately I've run into some strange issues with sessions not working properly, which I didn't have time to figure out just then. Also, there's days when I telecommute, and the network latency on a Remote Desktop, even with the eye-candy features turned off, can be a real pain. Having Parallels to rely on locally for testing in explorer is pretty nice.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Balthisar]

I used Virtual PC for ages and ages. It was dog slow ("emulation"), but it let me run the few Windows apps that I absolutely need. In most cases, it was quicker and easier to VNC into my bona fide Windows box.

When the Intel Macs came out, and then Parallels, I dumped the PC and replaced it with an iMac, saved my dollars and dumped my workhorse QuickSilver for a bigger iMac. Parallels was *that* damn fast. I've never tried BootCamp and don't intend to (dual boot? please), so I honestly don't know what the performance hit is, but it's still fast enough that I don't care. Parallels runs faster than my Dual Xenon 2.4 (ca. 2005 machine, not state of the art) engineering workstation at work does.

While I don't need 3D for most things, I'd love the ability to run the XBMC emulator for tinkering with my XBMC installation. I have a DirectX 9.0 emulator installed (from the *legal* DirectX dev kit), but it's reminiscent of VirtualPC all over again with how slow it is. So an upgrade for $40? Hell, I'm in.

FWIW, my Windows XP Pro license was free (as in beer), so the cost wasn't an issue for me -- I can see how it may be an issue for others, though.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

What majority are you talking about? Last time I checked the majority of "computer users" didn't use bootcamp or VMware, seeing as the majority of users don't even own a Mac, let alone use one. Oddly enough, I can't see eye-to-eye with anyone who says they'd run a game in VMware. Especially when people claim to be casual gamers. They don't need to go through the trouble of running VMware just to play a game when there are enough games for the mac to satisfy a casual gamer for OS X.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[shmlco]

Parallels doesn't require you to repartition your drive, "wasting space" on a 30GB partition that may or may not ever get filled up. Plus I can clone VM's for testing (web developer), back them up, archive them, run Windows IE6 at the same time as I'm developing to test for compatibility, and so on.

Sorry, but it's BootCamp that's at a disadvantage here, not Parallels.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a mac, but I'm 98% in the windows. I only use mac to test web based apps in safari. For people like me

GTFO. Just GTFO.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[jet_silver]

why in the world would anyone run emulation when they can run Windows natively with bootcamp?

s/Windows/WinXP. Bootcamp is supported for XP only. I have and prefer W2K.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Bender0x7D1]

Disclaimer: Anecdotal Evidence

When I talked to one of the sales reps at the Mac Store in Des Moines, IA, he said he got better performance for his games using Parallels as compared to Boot Camp. Now, I don't know why this happened, but I am assuming some sort of driver issue. However, it doesn't really matter as what truly matters in this situation is overall performance - making Parallels the better choice.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Ant P.]

Why did you blow all that money on Apple software and hardware when you could just install Konqueror for almost the same purpose?

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

So then what was your point? You said "why in the world would anyone run emulation when they can run Windows natively with bootcamp." but you admit you know, it's for people who mostly run OS X. Are you just offended that a product exists that isn't targeted at you?

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[ceoyoyo]

Or if you're trying to run anything but a FPS. Or if you're not aspiring to be a world class FPS player.

Apparently there are some actual reasons why you might want your FPS to run at more than 30 fps, but they're not something that a casual gamer needs to care about.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to go to LAN parties with my laptop and play Warcraft 3 and amaze all the Windows users by not bothering to shut down Photoshop, InDesign, Firefox, and all the rest of my applications, because OS X's multitasking was up to it.

Erm, Warcraft 3 was never a hardware intensive game even at release. Perhaps you had a kickass machine at the time, but there is nothing inherently magical about OS X that makes games run faster. If anything, it's more bloated than Windows XP.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[autophile]

Because there are times where I want to work in Windows *and* Mac simultaneously. I can run a Win2K guest OS with my campus Novell client and have access to all the networked apps that I need to use, and still use my Mac apps.

I agree, 100%. I got Parallels on my Intel Macbook because my work has various web-based applications which refuse to run under Safari or Firefox, as well as Windows-only applications. Also, I hate to say it, but Microsoft Office runs much smoother and quicker and less *quirkier* under Parallels than either Office for Mac, or NeoOffice (sorry, guys).

And now I get to fool around with games in Parallels? *plunks money on table*

--Rob

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[autophile]

3. Most people are willing to exchange some speed for security.

I guess that explains the 200 meter lines at Heathrow :(

--Rob

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[qzulla]

why in the world would anyone run emulation when they can run Windows natively with bootcamp. If you're going to play games you would obviously want the most speed you can get. I bought a mac, but I'm 98% in the windows. I only use mac to test web based apps in safari. For people like me or for gamers, I don't see why you would ever use paralells emulation. The speed cost is just too high.

A good question and I have an answer.

I am the opposite.

I support Macs at work. I do the ARD thing and the ssh thing. Mostly ssh as I write scripts for management and the lot.

I use the PC side for AD management and trouble call software because I have to.

I can't be rebooting my system every 10 minutes to see the trouble desk nor can I be reboting my system every 10 minutes to edit that script.

Sometimes it is not about games or people like you who can handle frequent reboots. I can't. It is all about getting work done.

qz

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[frdmfghtr]

It's like Bill sleeping under Steve's bed, still separate, but close enough for me.

Thank you for saying "under" and not "in"...that would conjure up some nasty nightmares!

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

I only use mac to test web based apps in safari. Then why are you wasting time rebooting?

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Dr. Sp0ng]

Wine, for example, is quite fast, but there's a good deal more overhead in Parallels.

WINE is also a completely different beast. It isn't a virtual machine at all, but a natively compiled reimplementation of the Windows libraries. When you run an application under WINE, you're running it natively.

Hell, it stands for Wine Is Not an Emulator.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[ratbag]

Why run virtualisation?

1. So I don't have to reboot.
2. So I can have a copy of Windows/Linux/Solaris/Netware suspended in the background, ready to start up as and when I need to use it, whilst still having full access to my documents/emails etc. It takes 5 seconds on my MBP to spin up a suspended copy of Netware or Windows 2003. Compare speed cost with booting your machine. Whilst it's suspended it takes no resources other than disk space - same as Boot Camp.
3. To run more than one OS simultaneously (eg multiple copies of Netware/SLES to enable me to test gnarly eDirectory operations).
4. It's not emulation - Windows/Linux/Solaris/Netware etc is running natively on an Intel chip without emulation. The "context switching" between host and guest OSes does have an impact, but having to reboot my machine repeatedly in order to swap between only two OSes is way more inconvenient and time-consuming.
5. I'm 100% in the Mac, but my work on the other operating systems hasn't suffered a jot.

Incidentally, I run VMware even though I've got a licence for Parallels. I needed the "Host-only" networking option before the Parallels team supported it. I'll upgrade anyway, since I like to have as many tools at my disposal.

Rob (as my profile says, I'm Systems Manager at a London University and my work now depends on virtualisation in all its many guises)

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[tsa]

I'm in the same position. I only use Windows to play (adventure) games. Last weekend I decided to buy myself a 24" iMac once the new ones are out. That already was a pretty good deal, but with the new Parallels it suddenly is a lot more attractive. You get a screen that costs around 1000,- and around it you have a computer with WiFi, bluetooth, a reasonably good videocard, nice harddrive, good sound and beautiful exterior for 1200,-! The harddrive is big enough to put OSX, Linux and Windows on it, and with Parallels 3.0 I won't even have to reboot the computer to play my games! What more do I want?

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[WhiteWolf666]

And?

When you run a program under Intel's VT-x paravirtulization, you aren't emulating it, you are running it natively.

It's true that you have the overhead of two operating systems, but neither operating system requires much of the "oomph" of a dual core system with a gig of ram. Both can be near idle; and that's why you get excellent performance with modern implementations.

The question is whether or not they can pass through most of the 3D stuff. If they've implemented a virtual driver in the virtual machine that passes instructions through to the server's OpenGL subsystem, it could be very fast. This would be complicated, but it could be fast.

You don't see much of a speed hit running stuff inside Paralells. Maybe 10-20%. Nothing huge; and most non-high-end gamers could live with 10-20% fewer FPS.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[LKM]

I have a similar case. I develop server-side Java apps that need to run on IE. So I have IntelliJ on my Mac, and lots of different Parallels images with IE6, IE7, Vista+IE7 and various other differences. At least one instance of Windows runs all day long next to my Mac.

Of course, if you intend to play games, BootCamp is still the better solution :-)

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. If I can get 30 FPS in the games I want to play, I'll be happy. A few extra FPS that are ultimately irrelevant aren't worth a reboot, especially into Windows.

You'll soon find out how wrong you are. Any decent gamer knows that.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[trifish]

Staying in OS X means you know that your computer will always work; no worrying about viruses and the like.

Sheesh, I thought for a moment that I was watching another of those Mac vs PC Guy commercials. Just read what you wrote...

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[giorgiofr]

30 FPS under normal load mean 1 FPS during the first explosion, and horribly torn frames during fast movement. I for one will not put up with that. All you need is a $100 7600GT and you can play all kind of games very well. Why put up with horrible performance?

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Ash-Fox]

2. So I can have a copy of Windows/Linux/Solaris/Netware suspended in the background, ready to start up as and when I need to use it, whilst still having full access to my documents/emails etc. It takes 5 seconds on my MBP to spin up a suspended copy of Netware or Windows 2003. Compare speed cost with booting your machine. Whilst it's suspended it takes no resources other than disk space - same as Boot Camp.

This guy spends "98%" of his time under Windows, where there is no VMware or Parallels for Windows that runs OS X. How does your suggestion even help?

He obviously doesn't want to be in OS X, because then Windows wouldn't perform as nicely (Windows will perform better as the host os, there is no arguing that).

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have missed it. After ten long years, Steve has admitted his secret marriage to Bill.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Tom]

why in the world would anyone run emulation when they can run Windows natively with bootcamp. If you're going to play games you would obviously want the most speed you can get. Actually, if 10% less frames-per-second means I don't have to go through the whole nightmare of rebooting into windos, I'll do it without at second thought.

There are lots of advantages: I can keep all the stuff running in the background (mail, downloads, etc.). I don't have to reboot (time!) plus all the hassle (windos needs to re-sync with tbe Mighty Mouse after every reboot, for example).
Having it in a VM also means I can make a copy of that and if XP corrupts itself again for no reason at all, I have a backup I can restore with a simple copy.
Finally, there are a number of games that people keep running even when they're doing something else. Many people don't log out of their favorite MMORPG when they check mails, surf a bit, etc. - now us Mac users can do that too because we don't have to reboot anymore.

For that and many other advantages, I'll be happy to accept a reasonable speed impact, if there even is one.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Jesus_666]

1.) You don't have $100.
2.) $100 aren't worth it to you because you're fine with slight stuttering and/or low quality settings.
3.) You own a laptop.


Besides, even an 8800GTS can achieve single-digit framerates with modern games. Playing on 1400x1050 with all settings maxed, HDR on, 4x FSAA and 8X anisotropic filtering might stress out the card on some occasions.

And yes, I know someone who defines "being able to play a game well" as "being able to achieve 30+ fps under all conditions while running at the absolutely highest settings possible".

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Carrot007]

> 3. Most people are willing to exchange some speed for security. Staying in OS X means you know that your computer will always work; no worrying about viruses and the like.

And like most exchanges of speed for security it is utter bullshit.

Yes osx is still safe, however windows wheather native under bootcampo of virtualised under parallels is still as suseptable to virus's either way.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[despisethesun]

Konqueror and Safari share the same roots (Webkit being derived from KHTML) but they're different animals. I've had a site that looked the same in Firefox, Opera, and Konqueror show up differently under Safari. They're close, but they're just different enough to fuck you up.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[ceoyoyo]

I didn't say 30 fps under normal load, did I?

Any decent video card at a reasonable resolution can maintain an acceptable frame rate at all times. The hard core players like multiples of 30 fps at all times. Few people need that, or would even notice the difference, and virtualization shouldn't cause much of a performance hit anyway. Also, there are other things than first person shooters.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

As far as speed gains, I can't imagine you think there is no noticeable difference in speed. Virtualization still has to go through a separate layer.

Imagine? I'm not imagining anything. I do it every day. I don't need to imagine. Are you trying to claim that there is a noticeable speed difference for the apps you run, or are you simply ignorant and imagining there is a big difference without ever having used Parallels?

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Erm, Warcraft 3 was never a hardware intensive game even at release. Perhaps you had a kickass machine at the time...

Warcraft 3 was plenty hardware intensive to strain the average machine at the time, just not the average hardcore gamer machine. I was running it on a 867 Mhz g4 laptop; not exactly a powerhouse.

there is nothing inherently magical about OS X that makes games run faster. If anything, it's more bloated than Windows XP.

Did I say anything about how fast the machine can run a game? I said OS X's multitasking could support running it without shutting other things down. OS X's mutli-tasking is a great deal better than WinXP when you're working with multiple CPU intensive applications. This is pretty obvious to anyone who has used both. Running WinXP+Photoshop+InDesign+Warcraft 3 results in a basically unusable gaming session because even in the background WinXP allocates too many resources to the other applications and does not do a good job of prioritizing the input devices. The same is not true for OS X+Photoshop+InDesign+Warcraft 3.

Look Windows is better at some things and OS X is better at some things. I'm no zealot and I run both of them daily. OS X just happens to be a lot better at running many applications at once when CPU or disk is the bottleneck, or when responsiveness of the input devices is key. Windows often does a better job when memory is the bottleneck. This lends itself to different workflows and different needs. On OS X, getting the fastest CPU is less important than getting enough RAM. On OS X, users tend to develop workflows that involve never rebooting or even shutting down popular applications. I'll run mail.app, Firefox, Safari, SubEthaEdit, terminal, ical, and ichat for months at a time in some cases because there is no need to shut them down to get better performance for other applications. On Windows, I shut down applications I'm not using right now, because otherwise the performance of the apps that are running suffers.

The problem I'm pointing out, is that while for experienced Windows users shutting down all your applications and even rebooting is common, so workflows develop to accommodate that need. Therefor, they assume that doing the same is no big deal to OS X users, and that simply is not the case.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[suv4x4]

Also, maybe you're not understanding the workflow of many mac users. don't shutdown my computer and I don't reboot. I rarely ever shutdown about 5 major applications.

I like Mac (on which I test sites/apps), I like Windows (which I use), and I like Linux (on which my server runs).

But for some reason Mac users believe they've got some special workflow that the rest of us are deprived. Not shutting down your PC at night doesn't mean you're a Mac user. Many Windows users do that too.

It just means that you either put yourself to sleep watching downloaded shows on your Mac (so it remains on), and/or are downloading stuff from P2P (so it remains on), or you're lazy and forget to turn it off (so it remains on).

There's no benefit for a desktop user to run his machine 24/7. I used to do this, staying on for months on XP. But it just means bigger electricity bills. Maybe Macs run on steam so there's no such problem with them, I don't know.

But honestly, the mythical "frequent rebooting and resetting" of Windows, just like the Blue Screen of Death, is one of those things that died with the 9x series of Windows (95/98/Me). NT is a completely different architecture, which for no point in its development suffered from those problems.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[jZnat]

What more do I want? The ability to upgrade its hardware? You can only get that with the Mac Pro sadly...

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[xaoslaad]

The performance is better much better than 10-15% . It's not 100%, but a lot of games are very much playable on it. Still, there are many that have problems in the betas, but it is getting there...

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[toddestan]

Exactly. If I was to buy a $1000 screen, I would want to use it for far longer than the hardware that it would initially attached to.

However, to Apple's credit, they seem to realize the 24" iMac is a bit of a flagship/niche product that most people aren't actually going to buy.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[geniusj]

That's good if you understood what I was saying. But just to clarify, I meant a 10-15% performance hit, not 10-15% of native performance. 85-90% of native. Is that reasonable?

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[waveguide]

I use Parallels for the same reason, only I build web apps using multiple servers, so I'll have a couple of instances of Windows Server running, and instance of XP and/or Linux running so I can test the app from different clients and see how it works on the network. It's slower, of course, since I'm allocating all the processing over only two cores (and perhaps more importantly, one disc spindle). Slower or not, it's a great environment for testing apps that involve more than one computer. BootCamp doesn't do that for you.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[ratbag]

At the risk of perpetuating an argument started by a near-troll AC, his/her (erroneous) question was:

why in the world would anyone run emulation [...] ?

And I was providing a few arguments why some people (myself included) run "emulation". I offered no help, merely an answer to a question.

Take it easy,

Rob.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

But for some reason Mac users believe they've got some special workflow that the rest of us are deprived.

If you really do use OS X, Windows and Linux every day (I do) you should recognize that each architecture lends itself to different workflows. When I run Windows, I run 1-3 applications at a time and I shut them down when I'm not using them, because otherwise the system becomes unusable. Application leak memory and Windows does not clean up after them well, so they need to be quit and restarted. Adobe InDesign on Windows, for example lasts about 2 days using the size of files I normally handle, then the UI becomes too slow to use. Quitting the program and restarting fixes it. InDesign leaks memory on OS X as well, but never to the point that it stops working and leaving it open for a week does not make the machine unusable for other task like it does on Windows.

Because of the real multi-tasking differences, workflows are very different. On OS X I regularly leave 8 or so applications running constantly for a month or more. Why would I ever quit my e-mail client or browsers, or calendar, or IM client? On Windows I quit them because otherwise the computer eventually stops being responsive, even if they are just sitting in the background.

There's no benefit for a desktop user to run his machine 24/7.

That all depends upon what you do with it. Is your desktop also your DVR? Do you use it to play music while you sleep? Does it monitor your security system? Are you like one of my co-workers and only sleep 45 minutes at a time, spread out evenly around the clock? Be careful making blanket declarations.

But honestly, the mythical "frequent rebooting and resetting" of Windows, just like the Blue Screen of Death, is one of those things that died with the 9x series of Windows (95/98/Me).

I rebooted my Win2k machine every day at work because I needed to in order to keep it responsive. Anyway, I never said you have to reboot modern versions of Windows. I said it was less of a hassle given the average workflow on a Windows machine (only a few apps open). When I rebooted my mac laptop the other day, the first thing I did after logging in was tell it to start 8 applications I leave running all the time at work. I rebooted my Windows setup at the same time, and I started the one application I needed right away. Quitting one app and rebooting to play a game on Windows is not that big of a hassle. Saving all my files/sessions and quitting 8 programs, rebooting, playing a game, rebooting, and then starting those 8 programs back up and reopening the files, is a pain I don't want to bother with just to play a game. I'd rather just play a console game. Starting Parallels and the game, however, is convenient and acceptable

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[suv4x4]

Honestly if things randomly become unresponsive on your machine there's a bigger problem than using windows. I'm using Windows for ages and never had that problem. This is a list of apps you'd normally find running all the time on my PC:

Photoshop
Dreamweaver
Flash
Illustrator
Eclipse
Outlook Express
ICQ / Skype / MSN
OneNote
One or more of those apps (one or more windows of each): Firefox, Opera, IE
Winamp
frequently, VMWare with a booted Linux or Windows image in it (for testing)
frequently, TV tuner running at PAL resolution with noise filter and realtime deinterlaciug on it.
frequently, 3DSMax

I don't have amazing system my any standards: Celeron with 1 GB RAM, and XP SP2.

If the problem is with the OS, and not with the hardware you were using, or even more likely some garbage you installed on all machines you worked on, how come I don't experience those weird "slowdowns" you're talking about?

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[xaoslaad]

I would say 85% is pretty close to a reasonable expectation. Like I said, games, especially OpenGL ones are playing very smoothly. Some aren't working yet, but it's still in beta yet so.... They just released the DirectX support beta release before the last so it is lagging a bit behind OpenGL. But both are making steady progressions :)

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[Yeechang Lee]

I have a Treo 700p and a little windows only app, PDAnet, that lets me connect to the net through my Sprint data connection. Works great.

I have a Treo 700p and a little Palm OS app, USB Modem, that lets me connect to the net through my Sprint EV-DO data connection. Works great with my MacBook and its built-in Network control panel.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Honestly if things randomly become unresponsive on your machine there's a bigger problem than using windows.

Yeah, it is strange how this same problem has persisted across 6 different hardware vendors and a dozen or more fresh installs or various versions of Windows (some of which were centrally managed and which I did not even have permission to install software on). It's not like this has been documented for years by professionals in many different fields. Run Adobe InDesign and open and edit a few large documents, like a catalog or something. You'll get about 2, 8-hour days, and then Windows is at the point where clicking on a given item in the task bar takes 60 seconds or more to bring that application to the foreground, regardless of which application is in the foreground when you use it. (P.S., it is not random. This is easily repeatable and the same situation applies to differing degrees with almost all software on Windows.)

This is a list of apps you'd normally find running all the time on my PC:

The responsiveness issue is not about how many applications you have open. It is about how long you actually perform operations in them without quitting them. As for running lots of applications on Windows, if you have RAM as your limiting factor, Windows does a better job (for most use cases) than OS X does. It does a worse job if CPU or disk is the limiting factor. If you have all those applications you mention sitting in the background idle and they have not been idle you're probably fine, unless of course you've actually been doing things with them, then they will start to leak memory which is not cleaned up. The worst case is when you have an application in the background actually trying to share the CPU with the one in the foreground. Windows handles that situation poorly because it does not prioritize either the foreground application of the user interface elements enough in comparison. Unless you've been dealing with it so long you no longer notice, several minute pauses before the UI responds is pretty unusable.

For that matter, do a Google search for UI responsiveness issues with Windows. A lot of graphic artists avoid the platform simply because mouse and other input is not prioritized enough above other functions. If you're trying to highlight some text and the mouse input is ignored or not displayed for a half a second it is no big deal. When you're trying to draw a brush stroke in a painting program, it is a show stopper.

Re:uh boot camp still wins

[sirdisc]

Here you go, imagine away... Thanks. Virtualization has to go through a hypervisor layer for everything. That will obviously have an impact as demonstrated below. The impact varies by what you're doing of course, but as a median it appears to be around a 33% loss running parallels. http://www.everymac.com/articles/q&a/windows_on_ma c/faq/parallels-speed-compared-to-boot-camp.html Using Parallels on the Macs, the overall WorldBench test score is about two-thirds of what it is for the same machine booted natively into Windows via Boot Camp. Some portions of our testing, such as multitasking, show a big divide in performance. Other portions show only slight differences. In our Office 2002 test, for example, Parallels was only about 10 percent slower than in native mode. Overall, our results indicate that, using Parallels, you'll get about two-thirds of the speed you'll get using Boot Camp.

Does it run...

[nonsequitor]

The real question is: "Does it run Beryl?"

Re:Does it run...

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

The real question is: "Does it run Beryl?"

Berly

What about DX performance?

[Wicko]

I see Quake 4 supposedly running at full steam (no specs or framerates though, but I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt), but how are DX games running on that? Since Q4 is using an OGL engine, I can see why it would be able to perform so well. But it is my understanding that DX games greatly outnumber OGL ones.

Great work otherwise.

Re:What about DX performance?

[snuf23]

Why even test Quake 4, when a native Mac OS X version already exists?

Re:What about DX performance?

[Wicko]

If I had to guess, I would say because its the most advanced OGL game on the market currently.

Re:What about DX performance?

[despisethesun]

I would assume that the existence of a native Mac version allows for a better performance comparison. "How well does it run compared to native Windows? How about compared to native Mac?"

Linux Guest Tools too

[mccalli]

I currently run Windows under Parallels, but Linux under VMware Fusion due to the lack of Linux guest tools. The Parallels 3.0 announcement said Linux guest tools were provided, and that was a major reason why I've put down the cash for the pre-order.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Linux Guest Tools too

[Queer Boy]

There's also guest tools for Solaris, OS/2 Warp 4 and eComstation as well as several others. Don't believe the hype on 3D for Parallels, though. I have it on authority that it only supports open GL 3D and the Direct X accelleration does not support Vista.

Re:Linux Guest Tools too

[Macka]

If that's the case then I'll likely consider an upgrade too. 3D and the other Windows fluff I don't need; I don't have to go into Windows that often; but decent Linux Guest Tools have been sadly lacking for some time. I'd pretty much decided to switch to VMWare when it came out of Beta because of that. Parallels 3.0 might just keep me instead, if they've done a half decent job of supporting the main Linux distros (including Ubuntu).

Re:Linux Guest Tools too

[WhiteWolf666]

I have it on authority that you are an idiot, because they posted HalfLife 2 Support on the parallels blog, and HalfLife 2 uses Direct 3D

Only cool if you want to play games

[stere0]

While I'm sure the gamer crowd represents a vast share of Parallel's customer base, I am still disappointed that they seem to entirely neglect their technical customers. New releases often, if not always, come without changelogs. There is no quick way to send a machine image to someone else. There are still no Parallels Tools that synchronise mouse movement etc. for operating systems other than Windows.

VMWare people, bring it on, release every zig! This is a market where we need some competition.

Re:Only cool if you want to play games

[robbieduncan]

Erm, did you read the announcement? Parallels Tools for Linux are in 3.0...

Re:Only cool if you want to play games

[timeOday]

Only for games? GUIs are increasingly making routine use of graphics acceleration.

Re:Only cool if you want to play games

[VGPowerlord]

Yup, the announcement in the blog says nothing about Linux Tools, only the comments mention them. It's the upgrade page that actually mentions the Linux Tools.

More importantly, what do these tools do? If I were to seriously consider running OSX with Linux under it in Parallels, I'd like to know what exactly this gives me.

Of course, Linux isn't the only other x86 operating system out there. The BSD family is, for instance. I know people who swear by the OpenBSD firewall tool, for instance. However, I can't gauge the importance of not having these tools unless I actually know what they're for.

Re:Only cool if you want to play games

[Mistah Blue]

Similar to the VMware tools, these tools bring para-virtualized drivers for hardware such as the network, mouse, and graphics. Where Xen performs best with para-virtualized kernels, VMware and now Parallels para-virtualizes certain elements of the hardware stack rather than requiring a custom kernel. We can't compile a new version of Windows, so special drivers is the only option.

I for one..

[theTrueMikeBrown]

Think that this is a great idea. Come on guys, show some respect, please. Perhaps there are better options out there for many situations, but if you want to save some hassle while setting up your mac to run 3d wndows applications and are willing to take a small performance hit, then I say 'go for it'. "The people are quite taken with her - A trifle simple perhaps - but the appeal is undeniable."

VMware Fusion *Beta* 2

[Kaseijin]

The second release of VMWare Fusion

Fusion is still in beta with no public time frame for release.

Re:VMware Fusion *Beta* 2

[Andrew Tanenbaum]

So is Parallels 3.0.

Re:VMware Fusion *Beta* 2

[Thalagyrt]

"Within three weeks" isn't some form of timeframe for release?

Re:VMware Fusion *Beta* 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Very carefully phrased.

Parallels is a public beta with no set release date. But then, that's why you stepped delicately through that sentence, eh?

Re:VMware Fusion *Beta* 2

[Have Blue]

If the site's been saying that for more than three weeks, then no.

Re:VMware Fusion *Beta* 2

[Thalagyrt]

They announced that two days ago, so no, it most definitely has not been saying that longer than three weeks. I'm part of the beta team, it really is nearing completion. I can't say anything other than that due to NDA.

Is it worth it?

[TheRaven64]

I bought Parallels when I got my MacBook Pro. Unfortunately, even the latest version causes regular kernel panics. The machine is rock solid without the Parallels kernel modules loaded and grey screens a couple of times a week with them. I've seen it on Core 1 machines running fine, but on Core 2 laptops it's definitely still in the 'avoid like the plague' category.

Re:Is it worth it?

[DamienMcKenna]

It runs OK on my 2x2.0 Mac Pro, sounds like a MacBook Pro thing :-( I presume you've reported it to Parallels?

Damien

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have a particularly buggy version. I've been using Parallels since I got my MacBook Pro in December without any problem. So I would recommend people not avoid it like the plague if they require occasional windows use.

Re:Is it worth it?

[spiritgreywolf]

Interesting... I hadn't known that and I am running Parallels on a MacBook Pro (recent purchase). I've had one panic so far. It rather surprised me - I was thinking it was BSOD all over again.

Nice to know I'm not crazy. It's only happened once and I am using the Parallels image quite rigorously I hope it doesn't happen often!

Re:Is it worth it?

[Zaurus]

It's never kernel panic'd my MBPro C2D. Ok, that's not true. When I installed the version from the CD that was released before Core-2-duo's were out, that went straight to a kernel panic. But none of the post-C2D Parallels releases has given me a kernel panic on my MBPro. Nor has it ever kernel panic'd on my 20" iMac C2D at home. I run quite a few different programs, in OS X and Windows.

Re:Is it worth it?

[rthille]

The version on my wifes Core 2 Duo 15" macbook pro seems to work ok, but she just uses it for one program 'Marketing Plan Pro', and even that not too often.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 15" Core 2 Duo MBP, and I've been running Parallels (Build 3188) since the day of purchase back in April. I have a Win2k VM that I tend to boot most often if I need a Windows app (since I can suspend and resume that VM almost instantaneously), but I also occasionally boot into my WinXP Boot-Camp partition in Parallels if I need to test for something that only runs on WinXP (like rendering in IE7).

I haven't had a single kernel panic in all of that time.

I'm not the only person I know with a Core 2 MB or MBP, and as far as I know, none of us experience frequent kernel panics.

Perhaps we're just the lucky ones?

Re:Is it worth it?

[macroexp]

I'm not here to doubt your experience, but I've got a Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro (2.16, 2gb) and run Parallels constantly. I develop in Visual Studio 2005, host a SQL Server 2005 database, and use it for my development hosting environment for an ASP.Net application. I also use it to play music (I still haven't found a suitable OS X foobar2000 replacement) and test pages in Windows Firefox and IE7. I have NEVER had a kernel panic.

I have run this setup for about 3 months, with Parallels running for 8 hours of every workday in that span.

The only bug I've found is that if a Coherence Windows window has focus, and I choose a "Recent" smb:// fileshare from the Apple menu, it'll freeze Parallels and I have to Force Quit, reboot Parallels. I still forget and shoot myself in the foot sometimes with that one.

Re:Is it worth it?

[catchblue22]

I've had similar problems with build 3188 on my Macbook Pro. For a while it was fine, but then the VM became flaky, and I was getting spooky memory access errors in XP. I went back to an earlier build, and it seems to work fine. It seemed like the company was adding features at an extremely rapid rate. I wonder if this was the cause of the instability that I experienced.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Dr. Sp0ng]

I had constant kernel panics with Parallels on my Macbook until I upgraded to 2GB of RAM... now it's solid as a rock and I haven't had any issues in the 4 months since.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

C2D Macbook here. Recently upgraded to 2GB, never had a kernel panic before or after. :/ You should probably talk to support.

Re:Is it worth it?

[frippz]

That's very odd. I also have a fairly new MacBook Pro (bought this january), yet I have never experienced these problems with Parallels. Could this be due to faulty hardware on your side or just a load of luck for me? The latter seems less probable though.

Re:Is it worth it?

[rufo]

I use Parallels on my MBP 2.16Ghz C1D and I haven't had one kernel panic from using it, and I've been using the beta builds since about September of last year. I'm giving it about 800MB out of 2GB, running VS2005, an ASP.NET development server and Excel (don't even ask why), often leaving it open for weeks at a time. If that's not heavy usage, not sure what is. :-) I'd start looking into your hardware - might want to grab REMber and give your RAM a test.

(Thank god this project is almost over... I want nothing more then to shut down my VM and never use it again...)

Re:Is it worth it?

[Naito]

I've been running parallels on my mbp since I got it in December. Every version, and every beta up until they finally released build 3188. I've had occasional problems with grey screens, but definetly not "a couple times a week", more like once a month, tops. I don't see how you can call it "avoid like the plague".

Re:Is it worth it?

[Bert64]

I had kernel panics on my macbook with 2gb ram due to parallels, they always occurred when plugging or unplugging an ethernet cable (only occasionally, since i usually connect via wireless)

Re:Is it worth it?

[pvera]

This Mac Book Pro 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo had a couple kernel panics that I could blame on Parallels, but since the last update I am yet to have Parallels kill OS X. Every time that Windows has killed Parallels the rest of OSX stays fine. There's two of us at the company with identical laptops, same versions of parallels, windows and development tools, and we are both seeing Parallels stable.

What version of DirectX?

[TheSkyIsPurple]

What version of DirectX?

VMWare Fusion does 8.0,which annoyingly doesn't work with alot of what I want to use it for... Does parallels do one better? All I need is 9 =-)

For Everything Else..

[Anonymous Coward]

A Macintosh Computer:
$600-$3000

A recent, full version of Windows:
$80-$300

A copy of Parallels for Mac:
$70

The feeling you get when you realize you could have bought a new $399 Dell and not have to bother:
Priceless.

Re:For Everything Else..

[Anonymous Coward]

The thought not being able to run Mac OS, ever: Sickening.

Re:For Everything Else..

[Anonymous Coward]

The thought not being able to run Mac OS, ever: Heartening.

Re:For Everything Else..

[feedmetrolls]

Hello, you must be new to Slashdot. To save you some surfing and reading, here are the ground rules:

1. Down with Microsoft

2. Down with Sony

3. Down with Microsoft a little less when discussing video games

4. Although posting anonymously gives you a sense of freedom and relieves you of the burden of mod points, you'll eventually be curious to create an account so you can read all our wonderful sigs and get e-mail replies to your insightful comments.

5. RTFA

6. Up with Linux

7. Up with Apple, but not as much as Linux.

8. In Soviet Russia, Slash Dots you!

Enjoy!

Re:For Everything Else..

[chmod a x mojo]

Dear Sir or Madame, you seem to have made a typo in your guide / F.A.Q. on slashdot... #5 should be NRTFA (Never Read The F$#@ing Article)

Re:For Everything Else..

[feedmetrolls]

Dear Sir or...uh...Sir (this is /.), I based #5 on my endless encounters with posts beginning with "Well if you bothered to RTFA..." as there were little or no comments that contained the suggestion to "NRFTA." Although the latter is a path taken by many, it is shown that those who DO RTFA are modded up as insightful, interesting, and above all informative. Thank you for your concern and remember that #8 is the most important guideline of all.

sincerely,

Some Guy

Re:For Everything Else..

[Anonymous Coward]

The second you realize OSX is Linux with an Apple logo- Hilarious.

Win98 gaming

[lullabud]

Because Win98 won't run natively on a Mac, and even if I could install it I wouldn't be able to do the system updates since the update server is down. However, I happen to have this virtual machine image that is fully updated. Maybe now I'll be able to play System Shock 2 on my Mac.

About time...

[__aaclcg7560]

I'm looking forward to playing Quake 2 with faster software rendering under Parallels. However, OpenGL support would be nice.

Re:About time...

[Anonymous Coward]

...aren't all the quake games already available mac-native?..parallel coherence seems fantastically handy and all, but this sort of pattern is what's taken mac game development from life support to spitting-on-its-grave...

Re:About time...

[__aaclcg7560]

Sure the Quake games are available for the Mac. But running Quake 2 under Parallels is a great way to determine the video acceleration.

Parallels: The Mac's Fifth Column

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a perfect example of why I think the Mac community has been compromised by using Office X, and other products from Microsoft's Mac Business Unit. As I have mentioned here before, I do not trust PC-type people. They do not think like us. They are not like us. They are as close to "alien life forms" as we can get without having to leave this planet.

Seriously, they do not share our values. They hate that we have good taste. They like to keep their windows maximized and their ligatures uncombined. They think gray is a color. Hell, most of them are perfect little squares in perfectly square holes and if you go to PC strongholds like Staten Island you'll see most of the media they consume is produced by Mac users, as the Windows demographic is incapable of creativity in music, the arts, interior design, etc.

They are backwards. They live in the 1980s. They've contributed nothing meaningful to humanity for decades and decades. While we different thinkers are out writing AppleScripts, making HyperCard stacks, mixing in Logic Pro, editing collaboratively in SubEthaEdit, proofing rainbow banners in Illustrator, creating wealth through a variety of postmodern/postindustrial models and winning Nobels and Pulitzers and Grammys and Tonys and Oscars and Pritzkers along the way, the PC users are sitting on their asses downloading the fruits of our labor (how else do you explain so many being able to reference Futurama, bash the New Yorker, etc.?) The only thing they have in their favor is old, fat, white-bread bankrolls accumulated on slavery and imperialism and, personally, I wish their inherited wealth would run dry. Sure, we'd have a hell of a headache funding our next indie production, but so would the whole world, and when faced with adversity the ingenuity of Mac users truly comes to the fore.

Anyway, back on point. Why don't I trust the Mac Business Unit?

Because to have PC-type people writing software to help us finance our projects, communicate with our studios, write our manifestoes and organize our political protests, is a disaster waiting to happen.

Whereas we may allow products from other dull, dogma-bound companies into our /Applications folder, none of them pledge allegiance to a corporate master churning out horrifying simulacra of Mac users' innovations. On top of that, given that they are run by Windows users, how easy would it be for one of them to allow a "friend" to dummy up a Trojan, have another "friend" port it to the Mac, and then allow another "friend" to unleash a remote controlled hell on our private Bonjour-configured LANs? After all, they are "blood", right?

Which leads me to how some in our own community are encouraging PC-type people to switch to the Mac.

If you go back and do some checking of stories, you will see that in most cases where lifelong Windows users suddenly buy Macs, or people who are Linux to the core suddenly pirate Intel OS X from the internet, it is almost all done in cahoots with another recent switcheur (read: poseur) on the "inside" or one that "knows" someone on the inside.

So if we have these so-called "switchers" from Linux and Windows in the Mac community, facilitating crass, classless ass-pickery on our platform by encouraging more PC-type people to switch, just how far a stretch is it to say the PC users in charge of the MBU won't do the same when it comes to our applications? HMMMMM?!?!?!

Re:Parallels: The Mac's Fifth Column

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you are pathetic.

A) it is not "your" platform. It is Apple's Platform

B) Us "PC users", run the fucking world, and make it possible for you to fuck around with you meaningless art projects

Re:Parallels: The Mac's Fifth Column

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a few interesting quotes for you:
"And we had really bet our future on the Macintosh being successful, and then, hopefully, graphics interfaces in general being successful, but first and foremost, the thing that would popularize that being the Macintosh." -- Bill Gates about the original Macintosh

"Well, Apple did the Mac itself, but we got Bill and his team involved to write these applications. We were doing a few apps ourselves. We did MacPaint, MacDraw and stuff like that, but Bill and his team did some great work." -- Steve Jobs about the applications for the original Macintosh

"And it was also important that, you know, Microsoft was the biggest software developer outside of Apple developing for the Mac." -- Steve Jobs about his return to Apple in 1997

"We continued to do Macintosh software. Excel, which Steve and I introduced together in New York City, that was kind of a fun event, that went on and did very well." -- Bill Gates about Excel on the Macintosh... which was one of the Mac's very first applications

Source: Gates and Jobs at D5

Re:Parallels: The Mac's Fifth Column

[vought]

This is either the most elaborate troll ever, or the author really, really needs to take a step back and evaluate what's important in life.

Re:Parallels: The Mac's Fifth Column

[LarsG]

This is the best troll I've read in a long long time. My hat off to you, sir!

Re:Parallels? *YAWN*

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot.

In simpler terms...

[Anonymous Coward]

Vaporware. yawn.

Can it boot Vista bootcamp partitions?

[pctuk]

This is *the* big feature for me. Sure, bootcamp is great, but for those times that I need access to a Vista app - for example, the new Office - being able to quickly access my bootcamp partition without restarting would be superb.

BootCamp and re-booting

[BrianRagle]

As a Mac user who ONLY uses Windows for the few games I enjoy which don't have a Mac equivalent, I have yet to find the rebooting aspect of BootCamp to be slow in the least. Shutting down OSX has always been a quick-fast-and-in-a-hurry process, with the whole machine completely down in about 15 seconds, tops. Windows, it seems, performs better than I have ever seen it on my iMac and boots up completely in just under a minute or so. In fact, rebooting into Windows on my iMac takes FAR less time than it does to start VirtualPC on my iBook. If I am going to play a game for a couple of hours at a stretch, then I fail to see how a simple minute or so to get Windows up and running is too much of a price to pay.

Re:BootCamp and re-booting

[kramulous]

I totally agree. I have the same setup with my MBP. It is a solution that works perfectly for me. I had been a Windows user for years and I'm not sure if it is true but Windows does appear to be much faster on this machine. And my normal Windows machine is a dual zeon. Plenty enough grunt.

Re:Parallels? *YAWN*

[trawg]

Parallels and Bootcamp don't exist for die hard Macintosh users. As you say, for decades you haven't cared.

You're missing the point of these tools entirely - they exist for people like me: die hard Windows/Linux users that have always been disdainful of the Mac for various reasons (for me it was gaming and learning curve, for others it was legacy application support, for others it was hatred of a one button mouse, etc).

Now there's a way I and the zillions of others who are now jaded with Microsoft can buy a sweet Apple computer that are all the rage now - all the kids are using them and they're all over the TV, so they must be good, right!? - with the confident knowledge that I can still boot to Windows if I need to, or use Parallels to run my games, or whatever.

I've been a die hard PC user since XT days but now the Macintosh is appealing to me specifically because of these features. I'm a lot closer to spending my $$$ on a Macintosh now than ever before, and many of my PC using friends have already made the switch.

You and the rest of the Mac guys don't have to pay any attention to it and can smugly assume superiority, but you might as well wait until everyone like me has already switched over!

Bah....

[leenks]

I'm glad I bought Parallels yesterday. Now I get to pay another $40 to upgrade, whereas if I had waited a week it wouldn't have been an issue.

Why can't more companies give upgrades to those who buy just before the release of a new version. Even Microsoft have done this on a large scale in the past, why not the rest?

Re:Bah....

[geniusj]

http://www.parallels.com/en/products/desktop/upgra de

Congratulations! Your upgrade will be free :-)

Re:Bah....

[Anonymous Coward]

Read The Fucking Ugrade Page, Complaint Boi:


HOW TO UPGRADE:
Pre-order the Upgrade by June 6th for the special price of $39.99, that is 50% OFF the regular retail price!
Upgrade later at the regular upgrade price of $49.99
Maintenance customer? You will get the upgrade for FREE!*
Purchased after May 1st? You will get the upgrade for FREE!*

Re:Parallels? *YAWN*

[Paradise Pete]

So what makes Windows suddenly relevant to us now?

It enabled me to finally convince my boss to dump his Windows box, for one thing. Without Parallels that would never have happened, because he thought he needed it. In reality there was not a single thing he does that required Windows, but this gave him the security blanket. And now he no longer switches to Windows at all.

Re:Parallels? *YAWN*

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, ignore that idiot AC. Even die hard Macintosh users can see the usefulness of Parallels and Bootcamp. I'm all for basing Windows, but to say that all the applications that run on Windows are useless is just trolling or cultish.

Re:Parallels? *YAWN*

[beswicks]

I have never quite understood the them and us feelings of some users. Personally I use a computer to get my job done and I don't give a flying flip what "kind" of other people are coming to join the party. To be honest I'm glad of all the users who want to run my chosen platform as it makes it better supported and more likely to improve...

Recently I've "moved" from Mac OS X to Ubuntu, because REALLY like having a system that updates all of my software on its own. I didn't move because Ubuntu is cool, or because Mac OS is crappy, but because it makes my job easier. Tools like Parallels will allow Windows users who want to move to Mac OS for whatever reason do so more easily, and that can only be a good thing for your chosen platform. Embrace the newbies :D

HOWEVER, having said that I can see your point about "Macintosh Explorer", I think my eyes might actually be bleeding that thing is horrible.

Like the Idea of Parallels but ...

[kramulous]

I really like the idea of Parallels, especially with the 3D stuff now working, but I know somebody who had parallels running Windows XP and then Parallels crashed. This caused a hard disk corruption. The MacBook Pro was brand new and since we (Australia) have to send machines to the US for the warranty, it was months before it was back in his hot little hand. The sellers didn't want to touch the thing even though it was just out of the box. Unfortunately, this is why we no longer buy Mac Pros for our visualisation lab. I dearly love the machines but the ship to the US thing for the warranty makes them a terrible investment.

I think I'll steer completely free of Parallels and stick to a bootcamp ->reFit setup.

Re:Like the Idea of Parallels but ...

[Script_God]

Well, I hate to be blunt, but they're not going to do anything more than put the restore DVD in and re-install OS X if the file system is completely wiped. You might have luck booting to single-user commandline mode (hold cmd-s when powering on) and doing "fsck -fr", or booting the restore disk and firing up Terminal and doing it there if it won't boot to single-user. Now, if it was a physical crash on the hard drive, I don't see how Parallels could have caused it.

Re:Like the Idea of Parallels but ...

[old and new again]

I had the exact same issue(MBP 2,16 Core1Duo standard), tho I didn't have to replace the mac but the user was totally scrapped out and I had to re install

Re:Parallels? *YAWN*

[FictionPimp]

Also parallels has linux and windows versions of their current products. So it is safe to assume they will have a linux version of this as well. This means cedega faces a new kind of competition. Competition is always a good thing.

Re:Parallels? *YAWN*

[DaveWick79]

In reality your bosses "Windows" box is not really a windows box at all, its just an ordinary PC without the special chip on the motherboard that says 'you can install Mac OS'. To me, the equipment is the same, the capabilities are the same, it's just the software needs that determine the OS necessary. If parallels can produce a virtual Windows install that compares favorably with native Windows, I think that benefits every Mac user out there who uses more than a word processor and web browser, because it opens his system up to running a wide variety of software that is not available without going through the hassle of multibooting. You're not going to draw the hard core PC gamer any more than Linux does anyways.

Re:Parallels? *YAWN*

[Anonymous Coward]

even 'superior' mac lovers that have wanted macs for a long time haven't been able to have them. i do a lot of mac development, but i also need to have on hand compilers for arm and various dsp (the $$ kind, not the free kind), cad tools for schematic/pcb capture, simulation tools, fpga compilers.... and if i really care less (although in reality more often than not) M$ dev tools. the list of really high end stuff that _should_ run on the mac but doesn't is endless.

so until recently i've had to have two of the damn things... one for compiling mac stuff, and one for everything else.

now i can have one for everything AND everything else, and then a poor deflated ppc in the corner for testing... and considering i develop some apps that require 3d, now i won't even have to reboot!:)

this has been a problem for me since 1985 pretty much, so the gravity of this for developers in particular cannot be understated.

But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Lengyel]

Parallels 2.0 does not recognize the firewire port; Parallels technical support seemed less than enthusiastic about adding firewire support when I asked them about it, and I don't recall seeing that firewire is not supported in their literature. I don't see this in Parallels 3.0. So you need to be sure that your guest OS will have access to all of the hardware devices on your machine if this is a concern: it might not if Parallels doesn't support it.

Also, the idea that virtualization has "no overhead" is expensive marketing hype: the idea that virtualization reduces power consumption is the exact opposite of the truth. My MacBook runs hotter with Parallels running that it does without it.

Power consumption goes up with virtualization generally. Consider this ZD Net article on the hidden costs of virtualization (the silent enemy). Anyone considering virtualizing a server farm needs to include the cost of increased power and A/C consumption in their calculations.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Wovel]

You need to reread the article you linked. In no case would virtualization use more power than an equivalent non-virtualized environment. Yes the server with 5 images running will use more power than it did with its single OS, but it will still use less power than 5 or 6 individual servers (All other things being equal). Anyone who designs and/or recommends virtualization solutions for a living should understand this already, it is just common sense. Of course Mark Twain told us...

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Lengyel]

I re-read the article I linked to and it flatly contradicts your statement, weasel words such as "all other things being equal" notwithstanding. You need to re-read the last paragraph.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Wovel]

No weasel words at all, you are just 100% wrong. You obviously have no first hand experience with large scale virtualization techniques and are also not very good at reading comprehension. All other things being equal means.. If you increase the load on each individual partition after virtualization it would increase the power requirements. Perhaps the person who misread an article should stop trying to argue with people that have a first hand knowledge of the technology.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Wovel]

"In real power terms, a 300 watt server which was running at 20 watts is actually now running at 280 watts. You are reducing the footprint but putting in more processing power, so the power per footprint has gone up,"
To clarify what he is saying for you..He is saying the power per "FOOTPRINT" is going to go up, not the power per OS Instance. That is a no brainer, but he is being extremely vague in order to attempt to make a point. The power per FOOTPRINT is the power per Physical box. Wow! It is going up? Absolutely!
The number of physical boxes is going down. The author (Who apparently also has no experience actually implementing this) either doesn't get it, or was intentionally misleading to try and make a sensational point.
Reducing physical servers through virtualization will always reduce overall power consumption. You can continue to try to deny it all you want, but you really are just misunderstanding the article.
Somehow I doubt you will post here and tell us all that you did in fact misunderstand what he meant by footprint.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Lengyel]

Your statement would be true in an ideal world where CPU utilization and power consumption were linearly related; unfortunately they aren't, so your statement, and your position that I don't know what footprint means is fatuous.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Lengyel]

"The number of physical boxes is going down."

To clarify what he is saying for you, not only does the power consumption/footprint rise after virtualization, but so can the total power consumption. In his example with a 300 watt server running at 20 watts and 15-20% CPU utilization before virtualization, which runs at 280 watts and 80% after virtualization, the total footprint would have to go down by a factor of 14 for the total power consumption to be conserved. (At this point it would be appropriate to interject, "all other things being equal"--meaning that there is no difference in application performance--a big assumption, and that the identical servers are used before and after). Ignoring CPU utilization, the 14 to 1 footprint reduction with the identical total power consumption before and after virtualization isn't likely. Including CPU utilization, it's less likely. His point wasn't merely that the power/footprint goes up. That's not the issue. The issue is that the total power consumption can go up in a non-linear fashion.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Wovel]

Actually the fact they are not linear is exactly why you are wrong. The overhead in operating additional machines is exactly the difference. You should really stop arguing about something you clearly do not understand. It was obvious you did not understand the article or what he meant by footprint. To call me foolish for pointing out your own misunderstanding only serves to prove my point.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Lengyel]

It's obvious that you don't understand the article or what the author meant by footprint. You mentioned virtualizing 5 servers on one. If these were the servers of the example, they'd be running at 20 W at 15-20% utilization each. Now they're running on a single server at 80% utilization at 280 watts. The total power consumption before virtualization was 100W. The power consumption after virtualization is 280, so the net increase is 180 W. That's overhead for you and it's point of the article. Somehow you count this kind of an increase as a decrease. Now if by "overhead" you mean something other than power consumption, you've changed the subject. If you mean power consumption, you're mistaken.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Wovel]

Except 5 has nothing to do with what he said, you can't take my 5 and his 20 and 280 and think you have solved a riddle. You really are just embarrassing yourself now. What you just claimed would happen is not what happens in reality , period. There is no place in that article where the author tells you there will be an overall increase in power used. Period, end of discussion. Do you know why there is no place in that article where it says that? Because it would not happen. At no point does the author say total consumption before virtualization was 100W, you made that up based on a completely unrelated example I made.

One thing I can tell you based on the information provided in the article. Total power used before virtualization was more than 280W . Show me a direct quote from the article where it says total power used before virtualization was less than 280W. (You won't find it). I am really sorry I have proved to you multiple times that you misunderstood (and continue to misunderstand) the article. You obviously know absolutely nothing about this subject, I would stop replying if watching you make silly statements was not so dang entertaining. Mark Twain would be happy to see you still proving his point so many years later.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Wovel]

Again you just misunderstand. The footprint reduction is what it is. Power consumption does not jump from 20W to 280W magically, it is directly related to the increase in utilization.

At this point it would be appropriate to interject, "all other things being equal"--meaning that there is no difference in application performance--a big assumption, and that the identical servers are used before and after

Type of servers used before and after = irrelevant. All things being equal (As I stated) is about application load not changing. because that has nothing to do with the virtualization process.

I am starting to feel sorry for you now.

I can tell you after virtualizing thousands of servers I have never seen a case where total power consumption has gone up. Working with IT personnel in dozens of large companies involved in virtualization projects, I have never heard even one suggest it might be happening to them.

You seem to believe a lot of things to be true, but none of them are based on anything you have actually done. I am sure this is the point where you claim I am full of crap. It does not matter if you believe me or not, because the facts speak for themselves and all you have to stand on is a really poorly written article by someone only slightly better informed than you.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Wovel]

You know all the author was trying to point out is that you should not base your projected savings on the 20W number, I am not sure why you think it meant something else.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Lengyel]

"Type of servers used before and after = irrelevant." Absolutely false. Power consumption goes up with the square of CPU speed. That has to be taken into consideration. Also, with virtualized servers running at 80% utilization, instead of 15%, which is a typical number, the standard two 20 Amp circuits per 42 U rack won't be enough: you need twice that, which is another cost you haven't mentioned.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Lengyel]

You wrote:

There is no place in that article where the author tells you there will be an overall increase in power used. Period, end of discussion. Do you know why there is no place in that article where it says that? Because it would not happen.

But in contradiction to this, the article states that virtualization may result in an overall increase in power consumption:

Virtualisation is the silent enemy Virtualisation has been touted as a technology that can be used to reduce power consumption because it allows computing tasks to be consolidated to fewer servers. Unfortunately, reducing the number of physical servers by increasing the workload on the remaining servers can result in increased power consumption.

It was there all along. You just didn't notice.

Other sources caution that virtualization can increase power consumption.

The statement that virtualization ALWAYS reduces total power consumption is false.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Wovel]

Really not worth continuing trying to discuss this with someone who can not read. I understand it is difficult for someone with your very limited technical knowledge to make sense of all this.

The second article you linked also say "a physical server" nothing about increased overall power consumption.

One of the first problems often overlooked is the high power consumption and high heat output of a physical server hosting multiple virtualized servers. Remember that virtualized servers cause the hardware to run at a higher utilization rate, which means the power required to operate the physical server hardware goes up, as does the heat output.

A physical server running many virtual machines may run at a constant 80% or higher utilization rate, at which point the hardware is pulling quite a bit more power than a non-virtualized server running on average around 15% utilization.

The point is of course that many data centers are not designed to handle the increased power in the smaller footprint and may not be equipped to deal with the increased heat. It is all right there if your are able to read and comprehend. No where does it state overall power consumption will be increased. I am not going to discuss this with you any more because it is very clear you are simply incapable of admitting you have no idea at all what you are talking about. All you do is continue to link and misquote articles you did not understand to begin with.

The only appropriate response from you at this point is "I am sorry, I misread both of the articles I linked" anything else is just going to make you look like more of an ass than you already do. It is not a situation where you can agree to disagree or say it is a matter of opinion. You are just wrong.

You are clearly not able to understand what "a physical server" is. Older data centers may not be equipped to handle the increased power/btu per square foot of virtualization (or blades for that matter). This is the hidden cost your last article refers to, it has nothing at all to do with increased overall power consumption.

I can see where someone with no background in data center technology might fail to make the distinction, thats ok I am sure you are good at whatever it is you actually do.

If there is any more of this discussion you are talking to yourself, it is impossible to teach someone who believes they know everything.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Wovel]

You are showing your lack of first hand knowledge on the subject. Although many data centers still have 2 20-amp circuits per rack, you will find almost none built out in the last 5-10 years with less than 2-30amp circuits for racks and power distribution is generally built much more flexibly these days to support virtualization, blade servers and other high density configurations. You need to stop getting all your information from Internet articles. They are generally written by writers and not experts in the Technology they are writing about. Anyone who built a new data center today only designed to handled 2-20amp circuits per rack would be fired.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Lengyel]

The second article has an obvious implication: total power consumption can go up.

Many data centers are not equipped to deal with the new power requirements that are necessary to support virtual servers. For example, you might need four 20-amp power circuits for each 42U data cabinet that is fully loaded with standard 2U servers, in order to satisfy power needs and to provide power redundancy (the ability to withstand a single circuit failure). This power scheme is actually double the standard power layout, which provisions only two 20-amp power circuits per cabinet. And doubling the power per cabinet poses new problems of its own, especially if it means the data center needs to upgrade its whole power infrastructure.

There you go. It's easy to see that there can be a net gain in power consumption before and after virtualization. If typical datacenters don't have four 20A circuits per 42U rack to handle the higher power densities, then are you going to argue that their electrical costs would go down when they upgrade to handle the higher densities? What about A/C costs going up? Suppose you just manage to hit the A/C threshold in the new configuration, and now you need another A/C unit; are you still going to maintain that there is no total increase in power consumption?

The marketing slogan that total power consumption always goes down even though power/footprint goes up is simply no substitute for analysis. It depends. In many situations the total power consumption can go up. The earlier statement that the servers are irrelevant is incompetent. Typically older servers are replaced with more powerful servers with significantly greater power consumption.

You're right about not continuing: why would anyone bother using the services of a person who has no comprehension of the difference between total power consumption before and after virtualization?

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Wovel]

I am going to respond because you are just a moron! Not total per rack TOTAL! Lets say you have 100 servers and they are in 10 RACKS. You consolidate these 100 Servers in 10 racks through virtualization. You now have 10 servers in 1 rack, carrying the load of what was 100 servers in 10 racks. The total power for that 1 rack will go up! The total power overall will go down, EVERY SINGLE TIME. You win the award for the densest person on the Internet. I have to assume you are just fucking with me at this point because no one who can type can be as idiotic as you. (I gave you an out , you might want to take it).

AC Costs absolutely become different! Some systems can not handle the higher density BTU load properly! But who cares because your assertion all along is that total power consumption goes up, not "Your current cooling system might need to be redesigned to accommodate the denser heat output". If you would like to discuss the impact of virtualization on Data Center cooling , I would be happy to. First you need to let us all know that you have finally grasped the fact that total power consumption does not go up. Until you can grasp that fact there is no point in trying to help you understand anything else.

The fact you think you need an additional cooling system proves you do not understand data center cooling either, 9/10 times the problem can be addressed with proper planning of the rack layout and its relationship to the existing CRAC units. Want to know why? Because Total BTUs went down right along with the Total Power. You of course do not believe using less power overall actually is a reduction in total power consumption. I am sure you will now link me some article you misread that you believe states virtualization increases the total BTUs in the datacenter.

You are just grasping at straws, trying to save some face. Man up, admit you were wrong and move on.

You like to read stuff on the Internet. You seem to focus on writers speaking hypothetically. Here are some real people talking about their real power and btu reductions:

http://virtualize.wordpress.com/2006/12/18/power-s avings-through-virtualization/

http://blogs.hds.com/david/2006/11/a_power_company s_reward.html

http://www.foedus.com/solutions/datacenterConsolid ation.php

(conslidation and virtualization are 2 different ways of skinning the same cat, you still end up with fewer servers at a higher load)

http://www.solutioncentre.co.uk/blog/index.php?ent ry=entry070517-222751

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Lengyel]

Lets say you have 100 servers and they are in 10 RACKS. You consolidate these 100 Servers in 10 racks through virtualization. You now have 10 servers in 1 rack, carrying the load of what was 100 servers in 10 racks. The total power for that 1 rack will go up! The total power overall will go down, EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Not necessarily. The total power could go up. It depends; you can't tell from your example. If by "the singe rack carries the load of the 100 servers in 10 racks" means that the power consumption is the same, then it does not go down: it remains the same. What you're saying might be true, but it doesn't follow logically. You have to be more specific and provide some numbers.

If the 100 servers are running at 15% utilization at 20W, the 100 servers consume a total of 2000W. Now you consolidate them and each server running 10 virtualized servers consumes 280W at 80-90% utilization (let's assume they are the same 300W servers). Now the single rack is drawing 10*280W = 2800W after consolidation.

Maybe these are faster servers that consume 400W each. Now you have a single rack of 10 servers consuming 4kW, as opposed to 100 underutilized servers that were consuming 2KW.

You would need to include some figures to reassure people like the facilities staff who maintain the electricals, and the person who writes the check for the work.

Re:But Parallels doesn't see firewire devices

[Wovel]

Which is why I provided you with real world examples you conveniently ignored, and chose to go with your own made up numbers that have no basis in reality. You just have no grasp at all of power consumption in a data center environment works and you refuse to look at the facts that are presented to you.

Please link us a real world example of a virtualization project where they experienced an actual increase of their electirc bill after the consolidation/virtualization was increased. I linked several that showed a significant decrease. You will not find any, because it does not happen. (Numbers you continue to just make up randomly in your head notwithstanding).

I can tell you 5 things about yourself:

1. You have never participated in a data center virtualization project of any size
2. You have never participated in a data center migration project of any size
3. You have never worked in a data center above the level of an untrained operator
4. You have never designed or evaluated any data center or significant server infrastructure.
5. You are incapable of admitting you are wrong.

Maybe if you can find the professional help you need to fix #5, you can learn how 1-4 actually work.
More reading you will ignore..I am sure if you actually read some of this , you would just stop posting..

Overall, consolidation with virtualization and blades can offer significant help with both space and power and cooling, but awareness of power/cooling requirements and careful planning are essential.

http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/c olumnItem/0,294698,sid94_gci1243507,00.html

Upon the initial migration of the workload from 120 servers, AISO.net achieved a drastic 50-60 percent reduction in power consumption

http://www.mysiriuszone.com/index.php?option=com_d ocman&task=doc_download&gid=1708&Itemid=292

contain such virtualization features. According to Waugh, virtualization boosts overall performance while reducing server room power consumption.

http://www.serverwatch.com/hreviews/article.php/36 39556

It's tempting to say that after long periods of testing, an increasing number of organizations are seeing the benefits of running applications on virtual servers housed in fewer physical boxes: increased resource utilization, faster server implementation, fewer devices to manage, lower management costs, a smaller data center footprint, and lower power and cooling costs.

http://www.serverwatch.com/tutorials/article.php/3 637631

Processor virtualization allows concurrent operating system execution environments to co-exist and share a fixed set of hardware resources. One of its many advantages is that this technology facilitates server consolidation, reducing both operating costs and power consumption.

http://whitepapers.techrepublic.com.com/whitepaper .aspx?docid=289268

"Data center power demands are growing at an unsustainable rate," said Bill Zeitler, senior vice president, IBM Systems and Technology Group. "The most important thing now is utilization of servers through technologies like virtualization."

http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/originalCon te

Mac users want Mac apps, not Windows ports.

[LKM]

I'm a Mac user. Yes, I demand that developers do things differently on the Mac than on any other platform. If they don't, I don't care if they get tired of me, because I don't want their applications.

You don't just install crap all over my Mac. I want a single, simple bundle that I can install using drag-and-drop, and uninstall by dragging it to the Trash. If you absolutely need to install additional stuff, then:

1. use the standard Apple installer
2. tell me before installing what is going to be installed where
3. provide an option to only install stuff for the current user (if possible)
4. use the standard locations for stuff like Kernel Extensions
5. provide an easy way to uninstall all that stuff

If you don't do that, your application will flop on the Mac. If you create an application for the Mac, make it a Mac application and not just a Windows port.

Re:Mac users want Mac apps, not Windows ports.

[Bert64]

It's more of a unix port...
I would imagine mac vmware is far more closely based on the linux version than the windows one.
That said, it is still in beta, and it has features which parallels doesnt (64bit support, dual cpu support), as well as much better support for running linux guest images (parallels seems to cater exclusively to windows guests)

Re:Mac users want Mac apps, not Windows ports.

[JimMcCusker]

I've been running windows and linux guests on my mac using Parallels for a year now. Linux support is definitely there, and has been from the beginning.

Re:Mac users want Mac apps, not Windows ports.

[Bert64]

Then to elaborate...
Support for X11 is poor, there is no dedicated video driver like there is for vmware.

Re:Mac users want Mac apps, not Windows ports.

[LKM]

When I wrote "make it a Mac application and not just a Windows port," I did not mean to imply that VMWare is a Windows port. I was speaking generally and used "Windows port" since this is the most obvious and most common source of Mac ports.

I do not know how VMWare is developed.

Re:Parallels? *YAWN*

[ThePromenader]

I've been using mac whenever possible (always at home, sometimes at work) since 1986, and have a very definite reason for needing Parallels - I'm a web-designer who needs to make sure his work is displaying correctly in MS's buggy products. I can imagine there are other trades who need parallels too - gamers and developers, for example - and frankly I don't see how anyone could think that Parallels could exist were everyone disinterested. Not the most insightful of comments, sir.

To slightly change the topic: am I alone in being dismayed at Apple's BootCamp? Even in its first days, I stuck with oh-so-slow VirtualPC until Parallels became a finalised product. I really wonder why Apple thought it normal to oblige a reboot (meaining closing all your work and applications) when one "schwing" could do the trick.

Games aren't always the most important thing

[tuxic]

Yes, exactly, well said! There are people out there who actually aren't gamers and don't pay an interest for it. It might come as a shocking revelation to those that take it for granted that a computer is "obviously" used for gaming firsthandedly and "the occasionally needed" school project.

I myself spend my time playing games on my Playstation 2, and not even as a radical and politically extreme substitute - it's something I only do once a week on weekends because it's fun. The things I use my computer for right now is mainly for doing school assignments, reading news on the web, occasionally I search for jobs online, talk with friends over IM and Skype, write and reply to e-mails (although not frequent).

I'm also in talks with an editor to get published in a Swedish computer magazine for a potential career as a journalist whether it will be ambitious or not, which means I will use my Mac even more to get work done rather than spend my days with games. However, I don't blame people who use their ultrafast (or mediocre for that part) computer to mostly play games with it. I know it's fun and entertaining, but it's not something that every computer user in the whole world use their machine for.

Re:Parallels? *YAWN*

[dcam]

Can I echo this?

I will be buying my first mac within a couple of weeks. The major purpose of this mac will be to develop software for the windows platform (IIS, SQL Server etc). I'm really attracted to the mac hardware and OS X but unless I can run some of the windows stuff it just isn't going to happen.

I'm looking forward to the day when I do a demo of the software to a customer, running the entire thing as a Parallels VM from a Mac laptop. I'll find it funny even if nobody else does.

This is a good excuse to switch to VMWare.

[argent]

I'm kind of disturbed that they're asking us to pay for the upgrade, since they haven't had a version that's got even beta-quality USB support for more than a few months: I still have to disable and re-enable USB every time I sync my Palm, but at least it's possible now. I feel like I've been paying for being in their beta program, and shouldn't have to pay again for their "real" version.

Even if they're calling it 3.0.

I've been debating switching to VMWare already, because they've had good USB support from the start, AND they've been calling a beta version "beta". What's been holding me back is that I've already sunk the cost of Parallels, and don't want to pay again for VMWare when it comes out of beta. But if I'm going to have to pay again anyway, I might as well jump ship and go with a professional company.

why in the world...

[Anonymous Coward]

"obviously" & "ever"

This is a case study on absolutism and lack of insight.

Absolutely

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Windows user who switched to the Mac thanks to Bootcamp convincing a reluctant IT department that they wouldn't have to mess with one of their stupid IE only website/applications. Parallels just makes my life easier - much easier.

Remember to load up 2Gb of RAM though. XP is still a resource hog.

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I was surprised this wasn't already answered, but you can indeed boot a bootcamp partition with parallels. It sets up a second hardware profile in your guest windows installation, and boots the parallels profile only when parallels is being used, and doesn't make you choose when you boot bootcamp normally. It worked quite well. I refused to use parallels in the early versions before this was supported, because I didn't want two different windows installs.

-Lee

Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

This only helps companies who don't care about the Mac. They'll all say "simply buy Parallels and Windows".

Memory usage vs VMWare Fusion?

[caseih]

Certainly Parallels is ahead in the feature set. But how does memory usage compare? Parallels 2.0 seems to commmit all the memory you allocated in preferences, whereas VMWare uses only as much memory as its vms need. This can have some pretty important performance implications. In fact it is the number one reason why I use vmware fusion. Features like coherence and the integration things in Parallels 3.0 are killer, though. I've wanted coherence-style vm operation for many years.

First-mover advantage is a myth

[jdigriz]

Anybody been flying on a Wright-brand airplane recently? Anybody using an Altair-brand personal computer? (yes, yes, techno-archaeologists, you don't count) How many people run Multics or CP/M? Got a Fairchild Semiconductor chip or a Texas Instruments transistor in your computer? Microsoft was not first with the GUI, Apple was not first with the mp3 player, nor Google with the search engine. All first-mover advantage means is that for a little while you have the market to yourself and it's yours to lose. This is not in any way to disparage the Parallels product, I haven't used it though I've been following its development with interest. Choice and competition are good in the marketplace. Getting there first just sets the bar, and usually because it's a first effort make people aware of what it's lacking and how it can be improved.

Not always

[Almahtar]

If you're going to play games you would obviously want the most speed you can get.

The only game I play anymore runs perfectly on a PIII 500 machine with a Riva TNT card, but it relies heavily Direct3D. The game would run just fine on a tiny fraction of my current machine's power.

There are a few apps that I remember wishing I could run that require Direct3D but really weren't performance critical. I don't want the most speed I can get - I want Direct3D support at all.

Meh

[Almahtar]

Hey I'd mod you up for that. Got a good chuckle out of it :)

Coherence bothers me.

[argent]

Not the screen scraping part, that's OK, but the drag-and-drop is implemented insecurely, by exporting your file system to the VM instance... if you trust Windows with your data, that's fine, but if you're expecting Parallels to act like a sandbox, you better turn that off.

In practice, though, because it IS screen scraping all your Windows windows pop back and forth at the same "level" on your display, which annoyed me enough that I turned it off.

Any issues with using PC newsreaders?

[Anonymous Coward]

Binary fetching under OS X hasn't been exactly one of its strong suits.

Not virtualization

[Vitriol Angst]

You actually install Windows on the Mac on a drive, or in a virtual drive volume. So any emulation would be on the hardware end. It's not virtual, but passing calls to the equivalent IDE or redirect for hardware. A few things like 3D are probably virtualized to Open GL -- so that would make it slow.

This breakthrough is either an IDE that translates Windows Media 9 (or 10) to OpenGL, or they've found some way to get WM to work.

Re:Parallels? *YAWN*

[Vitriol Angst]

Actually, I'm using Parallels on the Mac because of very draconian security Policies at our Windows ONLY workplace.

I build Kiosks that grab data from the web, and make great eye candy.

We have an IT department that doesn't support Macs - which means it's the only way to not be forced to log in for guests, or to demo applications at our office. It's because, to make Windows Systems secure for a financial services company -- everything has to be locked down -- most people can't even install software.

So, we get an Image of Windows to run all the apps our visiting agents use, while the Mac handles connections to the Internet. All problems can be solved by overwriting the image with the original locked image.

>> I think this is a break from the conventional reason -- but perhaps will become more common. If you want to do any sort of "insecure" and multimedia work at an office that is "locked down" -- having a Mac is a refuge BECAUSE there is little support. No support means nobody breathing down your neck, I've rarely needed help on a Mac problem so I'm very fine with this.

So, in a Windows environment -- you sometimes need a Mac to run Windows, because it is impossible to change security policies.

Not the point, not the same

[Kaseijin]

mrseigen implied that a 2.0 release of VMware Fusion had been out for months; my only point was that this wasn't even close to accurate.

But, since you brought it up: Parallels Desktop 3.0 is in release candidate and does have a public time frame for release.

This will be nice once finished.

[webmonkey44]

This will be nice once finished.

Buy a PC for full functionality

[Anonymous Coward]

You still want to consider buying a PC rather than the wrongly advertised Apple product for full functionality.

For one, PCs are not *that* expensive any more ;-) Secondly, Parallels is nice, but Windows software that "runs on the hardware" may just not run under Mac OS X / Parallels; instead, Windows does not allow you to run just a number of important pieces of Windows software. Really, it is quite disappointing. Thirdly, we tried installing a Linux version under Mac OS X / Parallels, but, no luck with either Ubuntu, Fedora Core or Suse - they all crashed even when trying to install them. So once more, Apple advertising promises a tad bit too much. And we are back to square one, setting up two-computer / two-system solutions.

So from here, it does *not* look like you are getting problem-free virtualization at all, not the way that runs Windows or Linux fully under Mac OS X, nor, the other way around.

This, per se, sets the decision clearly towards a PC either running VMWare or with a dual boot solution. At least it'll run your software. Maybe in two or three years, Apple Computer, I mean, Apple will live up to the promise? Maybe.

Re:Parallels? *YAWN*

[MeanderingMind]

I'll second that.

While a flawed analogy, lets say that Windows users attempting to move to Mac are like people recovering from broken legs or a similar injury which impedes standard walking. You don't just throw a cast on them and tell them to walk out of the hospital, you give them a pair of crutches.

Eventually, they won't need crutches anymore and they're good to go. Until then, people used to Windows need all the help/reasons they can get to bother trying to walk through the Mac OS.

No "first-mover advantage", sorry

[AttilaSz]

I've been using VMWare Fusion beta for quite some time now, and it provides hardware-accelerated DirectX 8.1 to guest Windows OS since beta 2. So, Parallels is not the "first-mover" here

It remains to be seen which product will be first to market in a non-beta state, though.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion