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 Desktop for OS X Reviewed

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the virtualization-hot-emulation-not dept.

300

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

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

Where are the comments? (-1, Offtopic)

chis101 (754167) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693266)

Jeeze, I come here to read the comments and there aren't any?
Come on, this is Slashdot, I'm not going to read the article.

Re:Where are the comments? (4, Funny)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693273)

Well, maybe people are reading the full arti...oh, right, Slashdot. Never mind.

Re:Where are the comments? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693372)

my colleagues and i are going write our own linux distro, focusing on performance, security, and scalability. plan on running all of your future apps on our new distro, codenamed 'badger'. but we are caught by one stumbling block? should we use vi and emacs? and what is the minimum memory to run tux? help us and you won't be sorry. btw, does you need a pc or a mac to run linux fastest? what language is the most lowest leve source in? how can we contribute the fixes we will no doubt need to make? what else do we need to know to make 'badger' a success!!!!!!!!

Wake me up when ... (0, Offtopic)

hopethisnickisnottak (882127) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693272)

Wake me up when someone runs OS X seamlessly on a stock PC!

Re:Wake me up when ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693293)

Enjoy your nap. Hopefully we won't have to see you complain about something you seem not care very much about anymore.

Re:Wake me up when ... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693332)

wake me up when someone runs windows seamlessly on a stock PC.

Re:Wake me up when ... (3, Interesting)

edflyerssn007 (897318) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693448)

www.osx86project.org [osx86project.org] .

2005 called and wants their joke back.

Seriously though, people have been doing it since the first verrsion of 10.4 x86 was released to developers.
-Ed

Re:Wake me up when ... (1)

another_fanboy (987962) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693475)

What is this 'OS X' thing I keep hearing about?

Re:Wake me up when ... (1)

MPHellwig (847067) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693619)

Thats the Microsoft(r) 'X-Box Generic GUI OS Edition(tm)' for both PowerCPU (32 and 64 bit) and x86 (currently only Intel 32 bits), the running gag is that as with the normal X-Box they say it can't play games.

"Hotter than two Jessica Albas wrestling" (5, Funny)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693274)

So Taco, when did Harry Knowles join the editorial staff?

Re:"Hotter than two Jessica Albas wrestling" (1)

JackBuckley (696547) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693281)

For the record, the Knowles-like hyperbolic spoogefest is in TFA.

Re:"Hotter than two Jessica Albas wrestling" (1)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693344)

It's from TFA, but it found a sympathetic /. story editor.

I mean... "Wrestling with the devil in a pit of molten steel?"

It's only a quick (and short-of-breath) waddle to the next degree of Knowlesian Hyperbole, in which the speaker proclaims his delight in receiving a tremendous albeit figurative kick in his literally gargantuan buttocks.

Re:"Hotter than two Jessica Albas wrestling" (5, Funny)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693371)

So Taco, when did Harry Knowles join the editorial staff?

When did slashdot get an editorial staff?

tagged as "devilwrestling" (4, Funny)

bunions (970377) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693416)

this is exactly what the tagging system is here for, folks. Two weeks from now when you wonder "what was that thing? About wrestling? I think it was with the devil? Or maybe devils?" slashdot tagging beta will be there to bail you out.

Re:tagged as "devilwrestling" (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693429)

Yeah, cause a keyword search would never turn it up....

10+ years later... (2, Interesting)

LinuxGeek (6139) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693290)

The promise of the HURD microkernel with OS 'personalities' is coming to our desktops in a slightly updated fashion. But I still love the idea as long as my Linux and Windows can run beside each other and behave, it makes development much nicer.

Re:10+ years later... (1)

andrewman327 (635952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693331)

I like writing code in Java, and I have to test how well it runs on different operating systems. This looks like it should allow me to do this while actually evaluating the performance without an emulator getting slowing everything down.

Re:10+ years later... (2, Informative)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693362)

And all the other virtual computing solutions to come out this year havn't done that for you???

Re:10+ years later... (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693523)

Not if he wants to test it in Mac OS too! AFAIK, stuff for generic x86 PCs don't support OS X (especially since you can't legally get an install disc).

Re:10+ years later... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693346)

s/HURD/Mach, we all know HURD is a Heap of Unfinished Redundant Dung. Mach's no prize, but at least people use it.

Re:10+ years later... (2, Interesting)

LinuxGeek (6139) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693476)

Yeah, HURD was (is?) to be the collection of servers that run on top of mach, thus my mangled description. Virtualization is close to the original intent, and hopefully it will really take off when AMD introduces their Pacifica and intel has their equivalent. Both versions are due any time now, Yonah is supposed to be the first available.

Re:10+ years later... (0, Troll)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693726)

But I still love the idea as long as my Linux and Windows can run beside each other and behave, it makes development much nicer.

Linux to run programs, and Windows to automatically download and install virus, worms, trojans, adware, and infect everything with them.

Has it all? (4, Funny)

chabotc (22496) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693295)

"..and it's hotter than two Jessica Albas wresting the devil himself in a pit of molten steel. It's no contest, virtualization has it all.."

Umm i hate to be the one pointing this out, but i for one can think of some very hot things about Jessica Albas that virtualization doesn't have.

Really.. [google.com] , can't compare [google.com]

Re:Has it all? (2, Funny)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693584)


Umm i hate to be the one pointing this out, but i for one can think of some very hot things about Jessica Albas that virtualization doesn't have.


You're not much of a geek, are you? Turn in your geek card!

Re:Has it all? (1)

jmelloy (460671) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693622)

Symmetric ... err ... multitasking?

Re:Has it all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693678)

I don't need her to multitask, I'm only one man...

Virtualization is the ultimate hotness (4, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693664)

Sorry, but by definition nothing can be hotter than virtualization as any powerful enough virtualization system can allow you to have N simultaneous copies of the thing you are claiming is hotter.

Thus a proper virtualization system would allow you to have two simultaneous Jessica Albas, which I think was being hinted at in the "wrestling the devil" portion of the post. The devil I guess was a methaphor for memory consumption, while the molten steel plainly referred to the processor load and resulting core temperatures.

Parallels - the only time my Mac ever crashed (3, Interesting)

davevt5 (30696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693309)

Here's a reprint from my Slashdot journal [slashdot.org]

Last night I crashed my brand new Macbook Pro. I didn't think that was supposed to happen! All I was doing was:
  • surfing the web
  • listening to iTunes
  • installing the Opera browser
  • installing Windows XP in Parallels

Yes, I am joking. Parallels is awesome. The claims of "near native performance" are indeed correct - in my experience. Parallels is what allowed me to finally make the 'switch' because my office is tied heavily to Outlook (and Business Contact Manager and therefore SQL Server).

Parallels works as advertised and is recommended from one slashdotter to another.

Re:Parallels - the only time my Mac ever crashed (3, Informative)

davevt5 (30696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693365)

To clarify, I mean that I'm "joking" to be annoyed by my Mac crashing when I tried to do so many different things - not that Parallels didn't actually crash my Mac -- it did.

Parallels is Great (5, Informative)

Over_and_Done (536751) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693315)

I decided to plunk down the money for a new Intel Powerbook because of Parallels, and I have not been dissapointed. I have been using it since thwy released the public beta for it, and it really is a great life saver. Running XP under 1 gig of allocated RAM and I cannot notice a slowdown on the Mac or PC side of the system.

My only pet peeve is the way that the virtual machine mount USB drives only allows 1 OS to have access to the device at a time. So if you are on the Windows side and insert a drive, Mac does not see it, and vice versa. I am not sure if there is a way around that or not. But that really is the only annoyance that prevents me for managing the this seamlessly.

I hate sounding like such a fanboy, but this really is a great piece of software.

Re:Parallels is Great (2, Interesting)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693391)

Could you share the drive on the network and access it via Samba or whatever OSX uses?

Re:Parallels is Great (1)

Over_and_Done (536751) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693656)

Yes you can. I did not mean to say that there is not a way to get it to work, just that I would have expected the software to mount the device in both environments. I am sure there are reasons why you can't do that, but it would have been nice if it "just worked".

No good reason to expect that to work (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693721)

I would have expected the software to mount the device in both environments.

I wouldn't have expected that as it's perilous letting two operating systems access the drive at the same time - just as hooking an external USB drive into two PC's at the same time wouldn't work either.

Re:Parallels is Great (1)

jdray (645332) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693402)

After reading TFA, I'm under the impression that Parallels is a VM-only distribution. They compare it to the higher priced "$129...Virtual PC standalone package" that, AFAIK, comes with a copy of Windows XP. If you need to run Windows, and you pay for the software you use, buying Virtual PC seems cheaper to me.

Re:Parallels is Great (1)

jmauro (32523) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693533)

Virtual PC only works on PPC based Macs. There is currently no plan to move it to Intel Macs. This just leaves Parallels VM as your only choice for virtualization on the Intel Macs.

Re:Parallels is Great (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693546)

Virtual PC only supports PPC Macs. Parallels only supports Intel Macs. For now, at least, they are not competitors to each other.

Re:Parallels is Great (1)

badmammajamma (171260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693442)

What takes the seamlessness away for me is that fact that you can't run 3D games with it. So, I still have to install BootCamp if I want to play.

Re:Parallels is Great (2, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693605)

I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it would be nice if Boot Camp and Parallels could share the same Windows install.

I have parallels running (4, Informative)

Clockwurk (577966) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693316)

on my Gateway laptop and when combined with OSX, its pretty damn slick. If you plan on playing games or video, you should forget about it and just use Boot Camp, but if you're not using very demanding apps, its a godsend. AutoCAD runs really well, and its nice not having to reboot. If you are contemplating a virtualization app, be aware that you will need memory for both operating systems. 512 is painful, 1 gb can get slow at times, and 2gb is the sweet spot. If you are going to virtualize XP, try SP1 instead of 2. SP2 is a lot slower in virtualization (this was the case when using Virtual PC or VMWare).

Re:I have parallels running (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693436)

"on my Gateway laptop and when combined with OSX, its pretty damn slick."

Are you implying that you've gotten OS X to install on your Gateway laptop?

Re:I have parallels running (1)

edflyerssn007 (897318) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693490)

I have.

I'm running 10.4.6 on my Gateway 7515gx with a Mobile Athlon64 4000+ and a gig of ram. I haven't tested parallel's yet, but I've talked to some people who have.
-Ed

Re:I have parallels running (2, Insightful)

Dis*abstraction (967890) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693527)

I hope you paid for that copy, you filching freeloader.

In the end, I went with Boot Camp (5, Informative)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693317)

I bought a MacBook Pro recently, with the intention of having a single machine for home (OS X) and office (WinXP). I tried out Parallels and there's no doubt that it is a very useful piece of software. Waving my hand over my Macbook (accomplished with Shadowbook + Virtuedesktops), caused my screen to rotate into either Windows XP or OS X at will. The processor speed, because the Core Duo is simply being virtualized, is pretty much full speed. On the other hand, the Mobility Radeon X1600 GPU (with its 256MB of VRAM goodness) cannot be virtualized, so Parallels must emulate an 8meg SVGA card. This makes the graphics of Windows XP seem sluggish. Since I am transitioning from a 4-year old Dell Inspiron that is very peppy and snappy in the GPU department, I refused to tolerate any sluggishness whatsoever in my new ($2K+) computer. I installed Boot Camp yesterday and then installed Windows XP. After you install the Apple-provided drivers for the MacBook (including Radeon drivers), the system runs incredibly smooth under XP. The only special thing I had to do was install Windows 2003 Server Resource Kit (free from MS) to re-map my right Command key as a delete key so that I could use ctl-alt-delete to login to my domain.

If you need to use Windows XP all day as your work OS (as I do), you will find Boot Camp to be the superior solution, if only for the snappiness of the system. I don't need to use OS X at work for any reason, so dual-booting works for me. If you only use a few Windows apps irregularly and will primarily use OS X all day, then Parallels is the way to go. Keep in mind that Boot Camp is free, while Parallels costs $.

Re:In the end, I went with Boot Camp (1)

Dis*abstraction (967890) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693466)

...re-map my right Command key as a delete key so that I could use ctl-alt-delete...
Doesn't [fn]+[delete] map to Windows' [del] key? If you've tried this, does it work?

Re:In the end, I went with Boot Camp (2, Informative)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693685)

That combo works in Parallels because Parallels likely maps that combo automatically. "Pure" Windows doesn't recognize it, unfortunately. As the user of a Happy Hacking Keyboard, fn+delete would be my preferred method :)

Re:In the end, I went with Boot Camp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693578)

I bought a MacBook Pro recently, with the intention of having a single machine for home (OS X) and office (WinXP).
Why do you want one machine for that? Do you run your own business? I'd much rather have two separate machines, one a work machine and one a home machine so I am absolutely certain where the line is drawn... no semen stains on the work laptop for instance.

Re:In the end, I went with Boot Camp (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693719)

"Why do you want one machine for that? Do you run your own business? I'd much rather have two separate machines, one a work machine and one a home machine so I am absolutely certain where the line is drawn."

It's easier this way for me because I can close the lid, go home at 6pm, take care of my dogs and then get back to my task if it's a large assignment. The fact that I need to shut down the computer and make a choice to boot into one of the systems keeps the line fairly solid. I have Office for OS X, but I prefer the keyboardability of the Windows version. I don't own my own business, but my employer understands how important it is for me to control my own hardware (and I certainly pay them back with strong productivity).

Re:In the end, I went with Boot Camp (1)

JoshWurzel (320371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693616)

"Waving my hand over my Macbook (accomplished with Shadowbook + Virtuedesktops), caused my screen to rotate into either Windows XP or OS X at will"

This is not the operating system you're looking for. You don't need to see our serial number.

That is FREAKIN SWEET.

Oh, poop... kinda useless for PowerMacs ATM. (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693325)

...unless they magically pull a G5/PPC version outta their backsides, it's kinda not useful to us old folks still clinging to our G5's. I know it wouldn't work for virtualizing x86 stuff, but damn it would be neat to harness a current dual-proc Mac to that kind of love (y'know, for things like having YellowDog Linux and OSX on the same box...)

/P

Re:Oh, poop... kinda useless for PowerMacs ATM. (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693419)

What about Mac-on-linux? http://www.maconlinux.org/ [maconlinux.org]

This will enable you to run Mac OSX on a machine with the likes of YellowDog installed as the host OS.

Re:Oh, poop... kinda useless for PowerMacs ATM. (1)

noewun (591275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693492)

Only works if you want to run Linux as your main OS. For someone like me who uses OS X as their main OS on a PPC machine, there seem to be no virtualization options. I would love to run Linux as a guest OS, but I have been searching and searching and have found nothing. Q [kju-app.org] will allow you to run a 2.4.x kernel only, and Mac-on-Mac [sourceforge.net] is very alpha software.

Re:Oh, poop... kinda useless for PowerMacs ATM. (1)

frankie (91710) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693487)

On the bright side, you only need to cling for 28 more days... [google.com]

PPC Virtualization (1)

Foerstner (931398) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693577)

http://www.maconlinux.org/overview.html [maconlinux.org]


Mac-on-Linux is a linux/ppc program which makes it possible to run Mac OS in parallel with Linux.

MOL is primarily intended to be used by those who run linux/ppc as their main operating system but still want to be able to run that occasional Mac OS application.

Games? (1, Insightful)

patrixmyth (167599) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693327)

How could you write that article without addressing the games issue? The lack of games is still the number one barrier to MACS taking more of the home pc market. I keep 2 machines at home. A mac for visitors, web browsing, video editing and some educational software and a PC to run the latest games. I'd ditch the PC in a second if I could. I'll probably keep my PC laptop, though.

Re:Games? (0)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693361)

"The lack of games is still the number one barrier to MACS taking more of the home pc market. "

Eh? Quake4 and UT2k4 run just fine on my old dual G5...

I find that quite often, the big games do indeed have two (even three incl. Linux) OS ports per game.

Now performance/quality issues between the ports? Oh yes, that's a whole other rant entirely...

/P

Go away. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693367)

Nobody gives a shit about computer games. We don't want your kind [atspace.com] on our platform.

Re:Games? (2, Informative)

LinuxGeek (6139) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693394)

They did address the games issue in the article. It was 'don't bother'. He even had the tongue in cheek estimate of a 3dmark score of -30000.

Re:Games? (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693415)

The home market isn't the only market on the planet. Parallels is perfect for web developers who like to work on Macs but need to test in IE, for example. Obviously virtualization is aimed mostly at the corporate desktop and software developer markets. That's where the money is.

Because they won't run in Parallels (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693608)

It doesn't handle 3D card emulation/virtualization so no games. If you want to do that you need to use bootcamp and boot natively to Windows. In that case, games will run as well as they'd run on any other system with the same hardware.

There's nothing special about Mac hardware anymore, it's just normal commodity hardware. Since it's x86 you can run Windows on it. When you do, it runs just as it would on an equivilant non-Mac PC. The only thing special about a Mac, internally, is the "I'm a Mac" identifier that tells OS-X it's allowed to run on that platform.

As far as games in virtualization, have to see if and when 3D happens. VMWare 5.5.1 does have experimental Direct3D support but as the name implies it's incomplete and buggy, and VMWare is Windows/Linux only for host OSes, doesn't run on OS-X at this point.

Yes, but will it run... (2, Insightful)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693335)

Vista?

I mean, it doesn't do a video card, and apparently even the lowest Vista settings need a video card (at least 64MB VRAM, right?). OR do I misunderstand things?

Re:Yes, but will it run... (1)

Mancat (831487) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693425)

Only if you want Aero.

Re:Yes, but will it run... (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693458)

I think you meant "Aero Glass" - the highest end feature. But the low-end sticker "Vista Capable" requires a DX9 card with 32 MB of VRAM, according to wikipedia. And that's the ultimate low-end.

Re:Yes, but will it run... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693505)

I think you meant "it doesn't provide hardware-accelerated 3D rendering." If it didn't provide an emulated video card, you wouldn't be able to see *anything*.

Parallels doesnt line up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693340)

Until it can read raw hard drive partitions and NOT swap cpu affinity every 5 seconds (yes thats right, it doesn't quite make proper use of the vanderpool partitioning as they claim it does...), parallels is just a gimmick. A rather poor one at that. Qemu and bochs and the like are far more useful.

Re:Parallels doesnt line up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693706)

Blowing your cache every 5 whole seconds is just killing your seti@home ranking, isn't it.

Re:Parallels doesnt line up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693708)

How is this flamebait? It's merely an opinion from someone who's been running it since day 1. It's a very valid one at that. The only people who would think parallels is better than mediocre are those who haven't yet used anything else.

Emulation? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693356)

Move over emulation, virtualization is in

Err, emulation (at least of winders on the mac) was always for running software designed for a completely different architecture. While the switch to Intel has changed the landscape for the Mac (at least on everything but their high end desktops), emulation is still the way to go when you're trying to run software designed for completely different hardware.

Parallels for Linux? (1)

wazzzup (172351) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693368)

Anybody tried Parralels for Linux here? I assume it's just as wonderful but I'm curious if anybody's had some hands-on experience.

Parallels vs VMWare (1)

Jeppe Salvesen (101622) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693370)

Anybody care to summarize the pros and cons of Parallels vs VMWare?

Re:Parallels vs VMWare (4, Informative)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693417)

Anybody care to summarize the pros and cons of Parallels vs VMWare?

The latter is vaporware on OS.X.

Re:Parallels vs VMWare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693661)

Parallels does, indeeed rock, but VMWare Workstation is still better.

Parallels does not have Snapshots, and the ability to roll back.
Parallels does weird things with attached devices. (read some of the other comments)
Parallels reports a lower (than I would expect) CPU speed in the Windows environment.
Parallels does not have a "Image Maker" where you can distribute a OS/Configuration for a Parallels Player target.
Parallels has trouble with giving back the mouse from a installed Fedora Instance.
Parallels does not do dynamic window resizing (drag a corner etc).

Don't get me wrong. I love Parallels, but VMWare is still king in my book, and the only reason I have a BootCamp partition.

Direct Hardware Access (1)

Khakionion (544166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693386)

Virtualization is nice, but not the dual-Jessica-Alba panacea he'd like it to be; I still can't play Windows-only games in Parallels because it doesn't have direct hardware access. Such a problem isn't easily solved, either, so if you were getting your hopes up about playing the latest games while keeping Windows in the sandbox in which it belongs, you're going to be disappointed. If someone were to port Cedega to OS X, then we'd start making progress....

VMWare similarity (1)

Phishcast (673016) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693389)

Is it just me, or do the screenshots of Parallels look nearly identical to VMWare? I realize both applications do the same thing, but if you wouldn't have told me it wasn't VMWare I wouldn't have noticed a difference.

Re:VMWare similarity (1)

aitan (948581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693494)

Indeed, looking at the description of features they both seems to have the same options, status icons, drivers, ... but until VMWare releases at least a version for Mac the comparision ends just right there. Paralells has today what other might be promissing for the future and it can help to the people wanting to buy a Mac but needing to use Windows apps.

Re:VMWare similarity (1)

pnaro (78663) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693501)

You mean other than the fact VMWare isn't shipping a running version for the Mac?

Great. (3, Insightful)

Above (100351) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693392)


So Intel can finally do what IBM developed back in the 1960's. LPAR anyone?

Different from VMWare? (1)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693393)

I visited the site and didn't see an answer to my question. How is Parallels different from VMWare Workstation? Or is it the same thing at a different price point?

Re:Different from VMWare? (2, Funny)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693434)

How is Parallels different from VMWare Workstation?

It uses a different codebase and it runs on a Mac? Just guessing.

Re:Different from VMWare? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693499)

I suspect in the near future that both products should have identical features and OS support except one runs in OS X and the other in Windows. It would be more interesting to see if VMWare ever get their Mac product out of the lab into the market place. Then we might see some serious competition on features and price. Microsoft is still the wild card in this love fest -- if they decide to play.

I'm extremely interested in older legacy games... (3, Interesting)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693395)

Like Baldur's Gate, or Icewind Dale, or Planescape (Any Bioware Infinity Engine Titles really). How do games of this nature run under Parallels? Is DirectX handled acceptably for everything other than 3D acceleration? If so, I'll probably have to speed up my plans to upgrade to an Intel based Mac. I'm a recent switcher, and this is the only thing that's been really hurting me. I use my Gamecube for new games, but to relive older titles it would be awesome if parallels would fill the gap.

Hotter than Jessica Alba? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693414)

It's impossible

WOW! Factor (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693432)

I really don't understand the point, for most Mac users. I have it sitting on my computer with XP, but after the initial WOW! factor wore off, I really never touched it again. I've been using a Mac for roughly 4 years now, and have discovered alternatives to all my old Windows apps, bought all the "need-to-have" cross platform apps (Photoshop and Word), and completely adapted my work style to my Mac (running a computer without Quicksilver is painful). I really don't see the point outside of advertising and a very small amount of niche users.

I guess I could play Windows Solitare now... On the bright side.

I do wish I could install Ubuntu on it though, but it seems that Parallels doesn't yet support it, I still don't quite understand the point, but it would prolong the WOW! factor a bit.

It seems that most people are OS purists, if you really need to be doing something in Linux, then you generally use mostly linux to do that, ditto with XP and OS X. Now when the let me run a single Windows or Linux app in a window, without calling the whole of the OS into play (like the windows desktop) then I'll be happy, even if it will be an interface nightmare (ugly XP GUI with my OS X goodness!). Right now it seems a big hastle, since there is only one Windows app I actually ever need to run, though there might be a Mac alternative (which I haven't found), SPSS.

Ubuntu Runs Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693531)

Ubuntu runs great in Parallels. The only difference is that it captures your cursor so you have to press ctrl-option to release the cursor.

Re:WOW! Factor (1)

bunions (970377) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693532)

> I really don't understand the point, for most Mac users.

It's not for most Mac users. It's for people who want to use their mac, but absolutely must have some part of windows. For me, that part is IE. For others, it's Outlook. I'm sure there are plenty of other applications, but those are the two big ones.

Re:WOW! Factor (2, Interesting)

JohnWhitney (707445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693665)

Parallels runs Ubuntu with no problems whatsoever. I use Ubuntu 6.06 on my MacBook Pro as my work development environment, and in general it is faster than my 2.6GHz desktop.

I wish the X-server had better "change resolutions on the fly" capabilities (to handle going from full-screen to windowed mode), but I usually end up just displaying xterms from the Ubuntu virtual machine on my Mac OS X desktop anyway.

Now do it without the root window! (2, Interesting)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693463)

I do definitely think this is cool, but I think the next logical step... and I know this would be very tricky... would be to figure out how to run programs in the Parallels operating system in a sort of "rootless" windowed way. I guess this would be pretty much impossible without modifying the hosted operating system, but if it could be figured out, it would be fantastic. Imagine having Windows windows and Gnome windows running on top of OS X seemlessly, without seeing their respective desktop backgrounds.

I suppose you could do this with X by using SSH into the hosted *nix system and running OSX's X server, but I don't see how it could be done with Windows...

Re:Now do it without the root window! (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693592)

This is complete OS virtualization, not emulation. So you're running Windows in its own environment, windowing system and all. If it was a Windows emulator then the windowing system calls from applications would go to the emulator and it could handle it any way it chooses, including integration with the OS X desktop. But here applications are running completely inside Windows, so there's no way to break it out of the root window.

Re:Now do it without the root window! (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693646)

First of all, for Gnome apps... just run the damn things locally! There's nothing stopping you from installing Gnome (or KDE, etc.) on the Mac directly via Fink and running it in Apple's X server, you know -- with or without the window manager.

In fact, sometime soon at least KDE apps should run locally without X, using QT/Mac.

And as for Windows, you want Darwine (once it works properly). I have it and it's good for little simple programs, but I keep getting an error about one particular system call on anything complicated (unfortunately, I forgot what it was).

Re:Now do it without the root window! (1)

Vorondil28 (864578) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693662)

There are X servers for windows. Although it would only work unless the applications you wanted detached from the "root window" were all X clients.

Parallels vs alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693496)

Basically, this is how Parallels lines up with the competition:
No usb support, no hardware acceleration, no raw partition support, no vanderpool cpu partitioning (try it, I swear, open the system monitor while it's running and watch it jump from one core to the next every few seconds and notive the 10% overhead on the other core while it's doing this), no support for some more-than-uncommon OSs (try getting solaris x86, aros, or even something as weathered as BeOS and OS/2 running on it.. will not happen.), severe memory leaks (watch it eat all your ram and dive into swap after running for more than 40 minutes), and it's not really any faster than 'emulators' such as qemu (call me crazy if you like but i've ran it side by side with Q, an osx port of qemu, and there is virtually (excuse the pun) no speed difference at all).
If you want to run the latest xp game, use bootcamp. If you want to be able to access your EXISTING operating systems on other partitions, look elsewhere.
Don't get me wrong, Parallels is heading in the right direction. Just stop thinking it's a godsend at this extremely early stage. It's not, it still has quite some ways to go yet.

Just wondering about Intel VT (1)

vivekg (795441) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693507)

This is little off topic but I would like to know - if there is Intel VT (Virtualization technology) enabled CPU available for purchase? Or they are still under development? What about AMD CPUs? Regards,

Re:Just wondering about Intel VT (1)

Chucker23N (661210) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693632)

Parallels does use VT. Almost all Intel Macs have it; only the low-end Mac mini apparently has it turned off.

Shared RAM? (3, Insightful)

xjerky (128399) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693508)

One thing that bugs me is tht you have to carve out a dedicated amount of RAM to each guest OS, even if you aren't using all of it. Since I don't intend to do much with XP I've been able to get by by dedicating only 128MB out of the 1GB on my Mac Mini. I wish there was a way for both OSes to see my 1GB of RAM and use only what's needed, but I guess the OS would need Xen-like additions, no?

Re:Shared RAM? (1)

ChristTrekker (91442) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693713)

I doubt it. OSs aren't designed to work with varying amounts of "physical" RAM. To the guest OS, that amount you set aside is how much RAM its (virtual) machine physically has.

Support for native NTFS partitions? (2, Interesting)

cmason (53054) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693514)

So, last time I looked parallels kept the windows partition in a file on the mac partition. It couldn't read native windows/NTFS partitions. Is this still true?

As someone with an existing install of XP (Bootcamp), it seems like a shame to have to two copies of windows to be able to dual boot (primarily for games).

-c

Re:Support for native NTFS partitions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15693635)

Yes, this is still true. Essentially you will need 2 installs of XP. One to use for gaming and booting natively, then a whole other massive second install to be able to go 'wow parallels is cool'. personally I don't see the gain from it....

Beware the Intel T2300E - and Dell! (0, Offtopic)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693569)

Beware the Intel T2300E processor - and Dell! [chinatechnews.com] Intel still sells processors both with and without their Virtualization Technology, and Dell has performed an absolute Bait & Switch (see link) with some of their notebooks. You need the right processor for this to run correctly -- Intel or AMD -- and you need a vendor you can trust!

Yes, Dell, these things do make a difference!

Of course Jobs wants you to buy the software ... (1)

boyfaceddog (788041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693663)

It means you need to buy a new Mac, too.

Still near-useless for Windows Games (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15693689)

I was wondering what type of support Parallels would have for Directx, and it looks like it's not much better than Vmware. Software rendering is a good start, but it's pretty much unusable for any modern games. I'll be excited when I can run an XP session in Linux with decent hardware acceleration. Then I can dump my NTFS partition forever.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?