Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Parallels Update Installs Unrelated Daemon Without Permission

timothy posted about a year ago | from the better-or-worse-than-unwanted-toolbars? dept.

Bug 170

Calibax writes "Parallels recently released version 9 of Parallels Desktop, their popular hypervisor application for Mac. They also released a new product named Parallels Access that offers access to Windows applications from an iPad for $80 per year. Access has received less than stellar reviews. When a user upgrades Parallels Desktop, he is asked if he wants a free six-month subscription to Parallels Access. Even if he says no, the product is installed on his system and the application is started each time the system is rebooted. It is installed with ancillary files scattered around several directories in the system and Parallels has not supplied an uninstaller or listed the steps to fully uninstall the application, despite a number of requests. In other words, Parallels has decided it's a good idea to silently install a difficult to remove daemon application on the system, even if the user has explicitly stated they do not want it. They have not provided an uninstaller or a list of files installed or instructions on how to remove the application files. These are scattered to at least four Mac OS X OS system level directories."

cancel ×

170 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow! (5, Funny)

tysonedwards (969693) | about a year ago | (#44780017)

Holy Department of Redundancy Department, Batman!

No kidding! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780047)

TFS rants in circles, and the subject of the complaint is a product named "Parallels"?

My head hurts.

Re:No kidding! (1)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | about a year ago | (#44780065)

Damnit, I just posted that. Now my post is redundant.

Re:Wow! (1)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | about a year ago | (#44780049)

Deja vu all over again!

Re:Wow! (1, Interesting)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | about a year ago | (#44780179)

Smells like NSA on steroids.

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780103)

Holy Department of Redundancy Department, Batman!

Re:Wow! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780311)

Holy Department of Redundancy Department, Batman!

Holy Department of Redundancy Department, Batman!

Good to know (4, Informative)

cob666 (656740) | about a year ago | (#44780023)

I've been using Parallels Desktop for several versions now but I won't be 'upgrading' to version 9 until this is resolved. Up to now, Parallels has been a great product.

Re:Good to know (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44781701)

I've been using Parallels Desktop for several versions now but I won't be 'upgrading' to version 9 until this is resolved. Up to now, Parallels has been a great product.

McAfee, is that you?

Lost a customer (4, Interesting)

danaris (525051) | about a year ago | (#44780045)

I've been using Parallels over VMWare Fusion for a few years now (there has been some good bundle pricing on it, and there were some features it had that VMWare lacked at the time when I was deciding, though I don't recall what those were now).

Unless this turns out to be a tempest in a teacup or otherwise invented or overblown, I won't be doing that anymore, and VMWare will have gained back a customer.

Dan Aris

Re:Lost a customer (0)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44780147)

I've been using Parallels over VMWare Fusion for a few years now (there has been some good bundle pricing on it, and there were some features it had that VMWare lacked at the time when I was deciding, though I don't recall what those were now).

Unless this turns out to be a tempest in a teacup or otherwise invented or overblown, I won't be doing that anymore, and VMWare will have gained back a customer.

Dan Aris

Why not just use VirtualBox? Or are you not touching that due to Oracle having their fingers in it?

Re:Lost a customer (5, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#44780159)

On Mac, it is nowhere near as slick.

Re:Lost a customer (4, Informative)

danaris (525051) | about a year ago | (#44780325)

I've been using Parallels over VMWare Fusion for a few years now (there has been some good bundle pricing on it, and there were some features it had that VMWare lacked at the time when I was deciding, though I don't recall what those were now).

Unless this turns out to be a tempest in a teacup or otherwise invented or overblown, I won't be doing that anymore, and VMWare will have gained back a customer.

Dan Aris

Why not just use VirtualBox? Or are you not touching that due to Oracle having their fingers in it?

I've used it, but as MightyYar says, it doesn't do as much as VMWare Fusion or Parallels on the Mac. It 3D support, for instance, still leaves a lot to be desired.

Dan Aris

Re:Lost a customer (5, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44780333)

Why not just use VirtualBox? Or are you not touching that due to Oracle having their fingers in it?

I've used it, but as MightyYar says, it doesn't do as much as VMWare Fusion or Parallels on the Mac. It 3D support, for instance, still leaves a lot to be desired.

Yeah, like 3D, or support.

Re:Lost a customer (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780569)

Drinking a screwdriver, some just came out my nose. Thanks for the laugh, I think!

Re:Lost a customer (4, Informative)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year ago | (#44780525)

Why not just use VirtualBox?

Because VirtualBox is slow and lacks features.

Re:Lost a customer (0)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44780949)

Why not just use VirtualBox?

Because VirtualBox is slow and lacks features.

Citation? This was modded to +4 based on popularity as I have seen VB just as fast as VM workstation. Actually VB slows down the host less than the $250 workstation! I only use vm workstation because of nesting support so I can run HyperV type 1 bare metal virtualizers. But I am an extreme niche here. To run office VB is a better value.

Re:Lost a customer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781219)

> To run office VB is a better value.

I use both VB (for browser testing) and VMWare (for running apps), and afaik Virtual Box doesn't have a seamless window mode or any of the other GUI integration features. At least for normal user activities, VM/Parallels seems vastly superior.

Re:Lost a customer (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44781523)

Ok.

Arstechnica.com mentioned this a few years ago for a MacOSX centric review. Windows seamless mode is available in the Windows version and I just assumed it was in the mac version as well. I stand corrected then if it is not there.

I wonder if Virtualbox is more crippled in non MS operating systems then?

Performance wise at least on Windows 7 it has to go with Virtualbox on my 2.6 ghz system. Perhaps on a newer icore7 extreme this might not be true?

Re:Lost a customer (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44781729)

Seems faster to me running on my 3.9 kernel 2.6 ghz linux system. my comprable windows box seems sluggish running vb to me. also read an article last year about a code audit some one did on vb and they reported that the code was "laughably bad".

Re:Lost a customer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781237)

[Citation Needed]

No, seriously! I'd like to see some hard statistics on this compared to VMWare Fusion, and Parallels. Do such statistics exist?

Re:Lost a customer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781417)

This guy seems to know his stuff, he's an engineer after all. Like my brother in law, he's an engineer too, he always comes up with clever nonsense.

The only worth mentioning emulators out there are Virtualbox and KVM/qemu.

The others are just bloatware. Last time i checked VMware it left my windows7 with about 4 daemons running fulltime in the background, one for network, one for usb, one for wiping ass and the other for making sandwiches.

I can't even imagine paying for softwares either.

Re:Lost a customer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780701)

yes, can we cut their fingers?
(to me oracle is even more evil than microsoft and sony combined)

Re:Lost a customer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780881)

are you blowing this out of proportion? i think so.

is the tfs/tfa sensationalizing a non-issue? yeah, pretty much.

the question at install time is whether or not you want a free TRIAL of the additional-cost service that is at least somewhat related to what you're installing... NOT whether or not you want to install the additional software that is related to, and from the same company as, what you're already installing. ya it sucks that something you dont intend to use is installed... but that's just tough shit. that isn't what the installer asked about.

so.. go ahead, shit a storm. get an uninstaller for the software component... but dont shit on parallels, they didn't do anything 'wrong' -- your reading comprehension is what went wrong.

Re:Lost a customer (1, Interesting)

hot soldering iron (800102) | about a year ago | (#44781191)

Wow. For an Anonymous Coward, you sure sound like a paid shill.

Department of redundancy department. (1, Redundant)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | about a year ago | (#44780061)

Yes, but... has Parallels supplied an uninstaller or listed the steps to fully uninstall the files?

Re:Department of redundancy department. (-1, Redundant)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a year ago | (#44780143)

So will you be modded "redundant" for redundantly pointing out the redundancy in TFS?

remote access (4, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#44780063)

The most important part: what this daemon does is allowing remove access to the computer, through Parallels' servers, using closed source code on both sides. Let's see, is there anything nefarious possible?

Re:remote access (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a year ago | (#44780153)

I wouldn't worry. As soon as the NSA has an uninstaller written, Parallels will release it.

Re:remote access (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#44780657)

And that uninstaller will remove the offending program, and silently patch your OS to make sure the back door stays wide open. Cos "national security" is more important than your right to privacy, ya know?

Macintosh's ease of use (-1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44780073)

Let me guess? Approved in the app store. And that ease of use that's touted by Apple means that it's helluva hard for the average person to get under the hood. Imagine grandma looking at this:

~#: _

Now, you want to tell her what commands to run to uninstall this? This is the problem with the walled garden approach, and Apple loves walls. And money. And you, the user... well, you're just buying the experience of owning an Apple. But good luck getting it to do what you want if Apple or an app developer decides to make it "easy" for you.

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780121)

Troll.

Parallels is NOT sold in the AppStore. It's installed via a custom stand-alone installer.

You have NO idea what you are trolling about. GTFO.

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (-1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44780141)

Parallels is NOT sold in the AppStore. It's installed via a custom stand-alone installer.

Of course it is [apple.com] ...

You have NO idea what you are trolling about.

Yeah... you're right [cbsnews.com] , the app store is totally safe.

Re: Macintosh's ease of use (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780193)

Its apple store, not app store

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (0, Offtopic)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#44780207)

I thought you were serious until I clicked on your Apple link.

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (4, Informative)

Zcar (756484) | about a year ago | (#44780283)

Parallels is NOT sold in the AppStore. It's installed via a custom stand-alone installer.

Of course it is [apple.com] ...

You do realize that's not the App store, but Apple's store where they ship you a box with the software?

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (0, Offtopic)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44781393)

You do realize that's not the App store, but Apple's store where they ship you a box with the software?

I notice you ignored the second link: Which shows that malware can and has been uploaded to the app store, which was my original point; The OP said that nothing like Parallels Desktop could be in the app store because it was too "low level".

I'd consider something that steals my credit card info and takes over my browser pretty "low level". The reason why Parallels Desktop isn't in the app store is because it loads kernel modules, not because the app store is somehow 'more secure'.

But hey... I already got a -1 everywhere else for pointing out that it's not all sunshine and kittens in AppleLand and got furious anger and rage from the fanboys... so what's a missed point between slashdotters?

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (1, Flamebait)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44781591)

You do realize that's not the App store, but Apple's store where they ship you a box with the software?

I notice you ignored the second link: Which shows that malware can and has been uploaded to the app store, which was my original point; The OP said that nothing like Parallels Desktop could be in the app store because it was too "low level".

I'd consider something that steals my credit card info and takes over my browser pretty "low level". The reason why Parallels Desktop isn't in the app store is because it loads kernel modules, not because the app store is somehow 'more secure'.

But hey... I already got a -1 everywhere else for pointing out that it's not all sunshine and kittens in AppleLand and got furious anger and rage from the fanboys... so what's a missed point between slashdotters?

You have no idea how bad you have it with Windows. I say this as a Windows 7 user too. The reason it is a big deal is former Windows users who switched to the Mac left XP/Vista because of this kind of crap!

Registry entries, malware, every free app including malware to slow down yoursystem including sourceforge using i3, eyecandy, ask, or whatever michevious crap! With a mac you want to transfer MS Office to a newer computer? Just copy the files to your phone and copy them back and run them. That is it. No fancy installers, no bizaare registry entries, simple folders, nothing hidden. It is what could have been if neophytes did not pick Windows back in the 1990s.

So if the Mac turns into windows why spend 2x for the switch. I almost was one of them when I seriously considered it 3 years ago. In the end I could not justify the cost sadly and the non upgrade options if I want to game plus my software like Office would need to be repurchased.

I hear the Linux users on here laughing at Windows users. But I no longer run Linux as I had beta quality experience with ATI drivers breaking during updates and terrible guis like gnome 3.

While Apple still has bugs like in its store it is known as a superior platform and people on the west coast use it heavily in universities. In the east it is more 50/50 windows vs mac. They are better if you can afford one and do not mind limited upgrades.

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (2, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44781749)

You have no idea how bad you have it with Windows.

Yeah, it's terrible. Having to worry about whether the latest game will run on the operating system I'm running... or buying hardware at OEM pricing online and incrementally upgrading my system instead of just buying a new one every year... and then there's that pesky problem of having to lug it into an official microsoft store whenever something breaks on it instead of the nearest 14 year old kid. It's rough.

Registry entries, malware, every free app including malware to slow down yoursystem including sourceforge using i3, eyecandy, ask, or whatever michevious crap!

Yes. Because malware authors target the OS with the biggest marketshare. Should Apple one day rule the world, and the Fanboys walk tall... they too shall feel the pain of worms, malware, and things being installed without your consent--oh wait, what was this article about again?

No fancy installers, no bizaare registry entries, simple folders, nothing hidden.

Yeah... that's really hard stuff there. Having to double click on an icon and click next a few times... or opening regedit and going through a tree-structure until you find the right entry, laid out just like any other filesystem.

So if the Mac turns into windows why spend 2x for the switch.

You're spending 2x now... you'll spend a lot more if Macintosh becomes the dominant OS... since you can only buy a Mac from Apple, and you can only buy the OS from Apple, and you can only get the apps from Apple, and all the peripherals are sold by... Apple. All that competition in the PC world sure does keep prices, er... really high, I guess.

While Apple still has bugs like in its store it is known as a superior platform...

To fanboys yes. To the rest of us, it's just another walled garden...

In the east it is more 50/50 windows vs mac.

Citation needed. Go ahead, I'll wait. While you're busy looking for that magical unicorn, articles like this [computerworld.com] continue to crop up suggesting that China doesn't want to pay the Apple tax.

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (-1, Flamebait)

Maestro485 (1166937) | about a year ago | (#44780323)

LOL!

Way to show you're just an outspoken Apple hater who literally has no idea what they are talking about.

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (-1, Flamebait)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year ago | (#44780547)

Too bad your examples are poor and the last one is off-topic.

troll-in-training?

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780849)

You are dumb.

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (5, Insightful)

bomanbot (980297) | about a year ago | (#44780137)

Well, you guessed wrong, because this article is about the Parallels Desktop Software for Macs that is installing the unwanted parts.

Funny enough, a software like Parallels Desktop needs such low-level access to the system that it would most certainly be prohibited from being approved into the Mac App Store. Apple is pretty strict about what kind of low-level access its App Store apps are allowed and where they can install their stuff.

So if the user would have stayed inside the walled garden, he would actually be safe from this particular threat.

I do not want to say that the walled garden is flawless or does not have some significant problems, but your guess is really simply wrong in this case.

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (0, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44780167)

Funny enough, a software like Parallels Desktop needs such low-level access to the system that it would most certainly be prohibited from being approved into the Mac App Store.

You're absolutely right. This link doesn't go to the approved and ready for download [apple.com] link of the software in the app store.

Apple is pretty strict about what kind of low-level access its App Store apps are allowed and where they can install their stuff.

So they wouldn't, say, approve malware [cbsnews.com] then...

do not want to say that the walled garden is flawless or does not have some significant problems, but your guess is really simply wrong in this case.

Yes, those citations are powerless against the power of denial.

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (4, Informative)

bomanbot (980297) | about a year ago | (#44780265)

Your first link is not the app store, though. That would be the online Apple Store, you know like Amazon.com? The one that actually has some brick-and-mortar cousins? With the Macs standing around and the Genius Bar? Sorta like Best Buy, but Apple-specific?

And, also that is definitely not for download, because, you know there is a shipping estimate there? And the first picture actually shows you the physical box the software is shipping in?

Besides, that box also contains the old version 8 which does not have the obnoxious behavior written about here. That one is new for version 9, which is not in your link.

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (0, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44781429)

Your first link is not the app store, though. That would be the online Apple Store, you know like Amazon.com?

That's nice. What about the second link, the one that shows that the app store can and does have malware in it, approved by Apple? The only reason Parallels Desktop isn't available in the app store isn't because Apple is concerned about security but because of an arbitrary restriction that everything purchased online be in a self-contained .app file. Whoopie.

Both you and the other guy abjectly refused to notice that link, instead focusing on the first one -- as if Apple's requirement that online purchases be self-contained somehow is a bar against security breaches or behavior like that under discussion.

But you know... whatever. You can't argue with fanboys; No matter what you say, they'll take the most insignificant thing and say "See! See! This tiny little bit right here is wrong! You spelled the product name wrong! That means everything you said must also be wrong!"

And yet... I'm the troll...

Re: Macintosh's ease of use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780271)

That's the Online Store NOT the MacAppStore you stupid imbecile.

STFU AND GTFO YOU PILLOCK

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#44780273)

First, that link isn't to the app store. That's the boxed edition. Second, you'll notice that in the product description for this feature, there's a ** that says "Separate purchase in the App Store".

So unless that page you linked to is lying, the App Store version does not do what they're talking about here. Only the separate installer that you get directly from Parallels installs the daemon in question.

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780529)

You've been corrected bra boy, own it.

--

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (3, Insightful)

Maestro485 (1166937) | about a year ago | (#44780177)

What exactly does Apple have to do with shoddy 3rd party software?

Neither Parallels or VMWare Fusion are in Apple's App store. So if grandma is going to the store to buy virtualization software, I would hope she has some idea of what she is doing.

Also, if grandma happens to hose the Ubuntu machine you gave her and she has to look at this:

~#:_

Does that mean Linux is shit and just for freetard lusers?

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781137)

What exactly does Apple have to do with shoddy 3rd party software?

Neither Parallels or VMWare Fusion are in Apple's App store. So if grandma is going to the store to buy virtualization software, I would hope she has some idea of what she is doing.

Also, if grandma happens to hose the Ubuntu machine you gave her and she has to look at this:

~#:_

Does that mean Linux is shit and just for freetard lusers?

I've generally set up windows installs virtually under linux using kvm, which comes with the kernel, using VMM , virtual machine manager gui under Ubuntu. Which decade did you last try linux?

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (3)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#44780349)

Let me guess? Approved in the app store. And that ease of use that's touted by Apple means that it's helluva hard for the average person to get under the hood. Imagine grandma looking at this:

Parallels software is _not_ available on the App Store. If you look at what this software does, there is not a chance in hell that it would be allowed on the App Store. So your little rant is completely missing the point. So when you say it is "the problem with the walled garden", you are completely wrong: This app is _not_ inside the walled garden. It does things that the "walled garden" would protect you from.

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a year ago | (#44780497)

Let me guess. You don't know the difference between the Mac App Store (which is Apple's curated App Store with its walled gardens) and store.apple.com which is their online store where they sell iPhones, iMacs, software and peripherals.

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781129)

What the HELL is going on with this girlintraining account? It's been posting some weird stuff. Some appears to be very insightful. Some like this is off the wall and seems entirely like corporate sponsored FUD. Multiple posts per day. Some quite lengthy. Who owns this account? I can't quite figure out the angle.

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (2)

cbhacking (979169) | about a year ago | (#44781555)

(She?) has always been pretty active, and used to be fairly insightful even if occasionally oversensitive about certain subjects and sometimes misinformed (but not usually to the point of repeatedly stating a false claim). No big deal; we all have our buttons and we all make mistakes. Overall, her posts were a definite benefit to the community.

That was, oh, up until a couple years ago. I couldn't give you a precise point, but these days it sadly does seem more like a troll account. Sad, because the points are still sometimes interesting (such as yes, the Apple app store does sometimes let malware through; no surprise to anybody clued in about this stuff, but Apple explicitly targets the non-clued-in). The way places and times of their presentation, however, leave a lot to be desired. As I said, it's sad.

Re:Macintosh's ease of use (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781435)

Trololol angry tranny.

Nobody smells the NSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780075)

Seriously? This sounds exactly like something the NSA would do. It makes me incredibly wary of VMWare, etc. as well though I may be willing to trust open source VM solutions...maybe.

Bonus: CAPTCHA = "reformat"

Re:Nobody smells the NSA? (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about a year ago | (#44780115)

If it was the NSA, it wouldn't be making itself public. ;)

Re:Nobody smells the NSA? (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year ago | (#44780245)

It's not ... it's pretending to be something else.

Re:Nobody smells the NSA? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a year ago | (#44780161)

Nobody smells the Spanish Inquisition!

Batch file uninstaller needed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780087)

Should be simple enough if you already know where the files are.

Burning bridges (4, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year ago | (#44780133)

When you decline to install something you expect that it doesn't get installed. Parallels is going to burn a lot of trust by pulling this stunt. The cost of acquiring their customers has certainly got to exceed the profit from people who decide that they will change their mind and want to run this software anyways.

At a bare minimum they need to start by building a package that will remove all traces post haste for the anyone that wants it. For people that don't want to run the package explicit instructions need to be made available about how to completely remove this. Any number of companies have screwed up royally before this, those that are still respected are the ones that instituted proper damage control.

Re:Burning bridges (5, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44780201)

When you decline to install something you expect that it doesn't get installed. Parallels is going to burn a lot of trust by pulling this stunt. The cost of acquiring their customers has certainly got to exceed the profit from people who decide that they will change their mind and want to run this software anyways.

At a bare minimum they need to start by building a package that will remove all traces post haste for the anyone that wants it. For people that don't want to run the package explicit instructions need to be made available about how to completely remove this. Any number of companies have screwed up royally before this, those that are still respected are the ones that instituted proper damage control.

This is not the first time Parallels has failed to uninstall things; I ran an installer of a trial product of theirs a few years back, and after uninstalling, still had to go in manually and clean up some components that wanted to run some sort of service. I haven't touched Parallels since. VirtualBox allows me to write my own additions, and if I need something more polished, VMWare Fusion is still rock solid.

So it will be interesting to see Parallels' response to thiis, as it definitely puts their (paid) installer solidly in the category of Potentially Unwanted Application alongside the CNet downloader and all the bundleware coming out of Russia and China.

Re:Burning bridges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780605)

I think you guys need to go back and read the screen a little more carefully! It does not say it will not install it, what it says is that it will not enable it!

Re:Burning bridges (1)

Urkki (668283) | about a year ago | (#44781743)

I think you guys need to go back and read the screen a little more carefully! It does not say it will not install it, what it says is that it will not enable it!

From TFS: and the application is started each time the system is rebooted.

Sounds Like They do enable it...

Re:Burning bridges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780631)

Apple itself does this kind of crap. Back when QuickTime was necessary to view some online video, they'd bundle iTunes and not allow you to remove it.

Re:Burning bridges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780895)

Apple itself does this kind of crap. Back when QuickTime was necessary to view some online video, they'd bundle iTunes and not allow you to remove it.

Everyone does this, this happens all the time. I really don't know what the big deal is, I've installed many programs that had extra crap I didn't want and this is nothing new. Use a different product if you don't like the package.
Firefox didn't ask me if I wanted their update service installed either, it's probably an NSA spy machine.

Re:Burning bridges (3, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44780987)

Apple itself does this kind of crap. Back when QuickTime was necessary to view some online video, they'd bundle iTunes and not allow you to remove it.

Everyone does this, this happens all the time. I really don't know what the big deal is, I've installed many programs that had extra crap I didn't want and this is nothing new. Use a different product if you don't like the package.
Firefox didn't ask me if I wanted their update service installed either, it's probably an NSA spy machine.

Difference is that is a Windows problem. Macs are better in that you have simple folders and no registry. To back up a program you copy it to a source then copy it back and run it. No install programs that install malware. Windows users are just used to bad things.

Re:Burning bridges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781293)

Why is everyone over reacting about this? It sounds like a bug. If Mac users knew anything about their systems, they'd know it doesn't matter if files are installed anywhere... there are no "low level" directories... in UNIX everything is a file. It just doesn't fucking matter. Stop thinking like a Windows user.

Parallels is actually kind of neat in that it will unload the daemon from the kernel when the software isn't running. I haven't seen any other developer do that with their software, usually leaving daemons running in memory even if the application isn't launched.

If you really want to know what was installed and where, learn about the system and don't blame the developer for your own ignorance.

lsbom is your friend [macworld.com]

more recent lsbom howtos [blogspot.com]

Wont matter much in the long run (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#44781455)

Most end users wont even know it took place. The few that do wont make a dent in their customer base.

CFAA applies ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780241)

Hmmm, user explicitly stated they did not want this installed, sounds like unauthorized access. Shouldn't the CFAA be applicable here ?

New slogan from Parallel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780309)

"We run software you didn't ask for in parallel" lol

Doesn't seem all that hard to diff (1)

t0qer (230538) | about a year ago | (#44780321)

or am I missing something?

Make 3 partitions on an OSX drive. Install OSX into all 3. Now on /sda install Parallels. /sdb leave vanilla. Boot into /sdc and mount /dev/sda /mnt/A. mount /dev/sdb /mnt/b. Diff a and b.

Granted your average user won't do this, but anyone wanting to play hero should be able to do it easily.

Re:Doesn't seem all that hard to diff (1)

Cap'nPedro (987782) | about a year ago | (#44780373)

And when a new service/process/task is installed with Windows software average users, nay nobody, even cares at all.

Re: Doesn't seem all that hard to diff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781453)

Your approach would show you everything that installs when installing Parallels, but doesn't tell you what is installed for just Parallels Access (the unwanted portion of the Parallels Desktop install).

Oh the Humanity! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780469)

Installer malware comes to Mac?!? Who is really surprised by this...Maybe now the Mac fanbois will finally stop saying they are immune to all this crap.

That's the new normal (1)

no-body (127863) | about a year ago | (#44780503)

We own you.

So what's the problem here?

Apps(R) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780505)

Alternate headline: "App update apps unrelated app without permission, results in apps apping other apps."

Parallels indeed (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year ago | (#44780519)

Microsoft, Sony, any other?

They know what's good for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780537)

They know what's good for you. After all it's an Apple product.

Re: They know what's good for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780687)

Parallels is not made by Apple.

That is why you have something to remove... (2)

nullhero (2983) | about a year ago | (#44780655)

unwanted software. CleanMyMac2 to the rescue. Found all the Parallels Access files and good-bye. No hunting or anything!! Left Parallels alone just removed the PA that I asked not to install. Though I wish everyone would just create an app that keeps it's files to itself so when I trash it EVERYTHING is gone. But then those that make CleanMyMac2 would not be selling their software.

Re:That is why you have something to remove... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781093)

Because the answer to unwanted software is clearly more unwanted software.

Re:That is why you have something to remove... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781385)

You don't get your aids cured by getting bare buttfucked by a bunch of meth heads repeatedly.

Even the name of that app "CleanMyAss2" sounds like a fake AV scam.

Also Macs and every other apple products are crap. But that's another topic.

Re:That is why you have something to remove... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44781609)

If you have to run cleaners then why switch to the Mac?

I can see why mac users are all saddled up while Windows users are sratching their heads thinking it is normal, but man if this is becoming a problem why pay the premium?

Was going to buy... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780697)

I was going to upgrade to Parallels Desktop 9 but after reading about this I might as well switch to VMware fusion 6.

Overblown (2)

MadChicken (36468) | about a year ago | (#44780739)

First of all, there was ONE "less than stellar" review. The Ars review was pretty pathetically trollish, I have no idea why. Check Google if you don't believe it. http://www.google.com/search?q=parallels+access+review [google.com]

I used it in beta testing and its head and shoulders above other remote access tools. Their pricing is out to lunch, but it is an excellent tool.

Second, Parallels always has done stuff like this. The last version or two has been popping up ads. It's lazy of them and stupid but it's not really an "unrelated daemon".

Don't expect their support to give you instructions on how to uninstall it, just run something like CleanMyMac2 and move on.

Re:Overblown (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#44780859)

So only one site had the balls to say something negative about a Mac product despite the fact that it had it coming. That is nothing to brag about. All this does is reinforce the idea that Apple users subscribe to a mindless groupthink.

The fact that this app has been doing abusive things in the past does not excuse the fact that they are doing it know.

And why should you use 3rd party cleanup tools on a Mac? That's the kind of crap that WinDOS is supposed to be famous for.

Your response is a total fanboy fail.

Re:Overblown (1)

MadChicken (36468) | about a year ago | (#44781073)

Read Ihtnako's review. That one is bang on, not the Ars piece. Yes it's flawed, and OH MY it's way too expensive.

If I'm a fanboy then I must be the worst in history...

Re:Overblown (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#44781011)

Parallels is head and shoulders over RDP? ...

No, not anywhere close. There is nothing on the planet that competes with RDP for remote access. Your statements show that you are truly ignorant of the world around you.

Try again shill.

*rdp includes citrix

Re:Overblown (1)

MadChicken (36468) | about a year ago | (#44781063)

Yes it's head and shoulders above other remote access tools for the iPad. I thought that was obvious. Or are you truly ignorant of things like, oh I don't know, TFA?

RDP is nice but it doesn't have the integration that this does to make things finger-friendly.

Re:Overblown (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781341)

There is nothing on the planet that competes with RDP for remote access.

There is, actually. RDP is a bandwidth hog and it has massive latencies, depending on the width of your pipe and the distance to the remote machine. NoMachine [nomachine.com] is actually quite impressive for remoting, a low latency, low bandwidth technology... but generally for remoting to a *nix server. Over a dial up connection it would beat RDP over fibre.

Virtualbox anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780745)

So the story is that some people with too much money install an expensive virtualizer that doesn't live up to expectations while there are perfectly good free alternatives...

This type of BigBrotherWare is UNPARALLELED (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780883)

This type of BigBrotherWare is completely unPARALELLed. The competition cannot come close!

Mac OS X OS system? (3, Informative)

davidbrit2 (775091) | about a year ago | (#44780917)

Mac Operating System X operating system system?

This is a new record for redundancy records.

Is it really that big a deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781019)

Ok so they installed access without permission. Burn them at the stake. Wasn't there old mobile access originally built into parallels? So now it runs separately. Big whoop. The trolls need focus their anger on the NSA. Parallels is a popular product with great feature for a good price. Let's not forget that before you try to burn them at the stake.

I don't know where all the bad reviews of access are coming from. I enjoy the product. Its one of the better remote products I have used. In my IT department it has become the remote app of choice. Turn on mouse and or desktop mode and it enhances your experience with it. I have been using it with parallels 9 since Labor day. Got an early upgrade deal. Let's stop with the Internet whining already.

What's the big deal un-installing this? (2)

grantspassalan (2531078) | about a year ago | (#44781097)

I have installed Parallels version 9 and tried out their access program, since it was free for six months. It works as advertised, although on our slow Internet connection it is essentially unusable. Trying to do work on a standard iPad screen that is normally displayed on a big PC monitor or even a big laptop makes for pretty tiny print. $80 per year is pretty steep. $20-$30 is about the maximum I would pay even if our Internet connection for up to par. It will not work on a LAN over Wi-Fi. I have no trouble uninstalling the Access part by simply dragging the Access.app in the applications folder into the trash and then emptying the trash and restarting. I did not see any extraneous processes running according to the Activity Monitor. Running the Parallel.app version 9 does not show any additional processes than before version 9 was installed. If and when I have to do real work, I will just take my MacBook and use the iPad strictly for entertainment, maybe answering an occasional email.

I blame Apple (0)

LodCrappo (705968) | about a year ago | (#44781147)

Seriously, isn't Apple supposed to do all my thinking for me? Why the hell should I have to use my brain and think critically about what software I install on a computer I own is doing? I pay Apple to do that for me. This is bullshit.

Back to the Future (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#44781229)

It is installed with ancillary files scattered around several directories in the system

Ah, the advantages of OSX. No "ancillary files scattered" all around the system when you install something. Remember when all you had to do to uninstall a Mac app was drag it to the Trash?

But the most unsettling part of this is the fact that Parallels had to know they would be found out, and went ahead anyway. When a company gets caught with its pants down, at least there's an indication that they realize there was something wrong with their behavior. This is much worse, because they just didn't care what you think.

windows7keysonlineshop (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781311)

    windows 7 professional , free windows 7 keygen download , windows 7 ultimate product key online [window7keys.com] , windows 7 activation key sale [validcdkey.com] , windows 7 professional seriennummer , 7 , how to genuine window 8 professional , Z58u$J;(
        windows 8 anytime upgrade key [windowspro...nalkey.com]

        windows 7 ultimate product key online [window7keys.com]

        windows 7 home premium product key buy [win7productkeys.org]

        windows product key online [yumzup.com]

        windows 7 activation key sale [validcdkey.com]

        windows 7 license key sale [ecomkeys.com]

        windows 7 home premium key sale [hdsn.org]

        cheap windows 7 ultimate product key sale [bouas.com]

        windows 7 ultimate product key [rmaol.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>