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 Beta Adds Boot Camp, Desktop

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the stuff-to-play-with dept.

244

Verunks writes "Parallels has released a new beta of its virtualization product for Mac OS X. This new release includes one major new feature, something Parallels calls Coherency: "Shows Windows applications as if they were Mac ones. Try it and enjoy best of both worlds truly at the same time. No more switching between Windows to Mac OS." Check out this Screenshot" More interesting to me is the Boot Camp support so you can have a single partition to run IE7 in Parallels to test compatibility of a website but reboot to play video games that need a little more juice.

cancel ×

244 comments

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

Incidentally... (4, Insightful)

BluhDeBluh (805090) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089650)

I've been wondering why a Linux distro doesn't do this automagically with WINE. It seems like such an obvious feature to implement, and would be great for people new to Linux or even those whose who don't know how to use it if it just ran as if native...

Re:Incidentally... (4, Informative)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089728)

Wine is not the same thing as parallels - parallels is a virtualization environment that runs the full windows xp operating system concurrently with mac os x. Wine is a from-scratch implementation of the windows API. There is a wine-derivative package for mac (crossover from codeweavers), so people can pick-and-choose the best solution for them.

Thank goodness for 3rd parties (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17090708)

It's always nice to see 3rd parties fix the deficiencies inherent in OS X. Namely, that it isn't Windows.

Re:Thank goodness for 3rd parties (1)

cultrhetor (961872) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090922)

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion; you're also entitled to be wrong.

Re:Incidentally... (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089750)

My Kubuntu machine does this. I click on .ppt files and they open in Powerpoint View, and .pst's open in Photshop. I manually set the associations, but I think that if you install iva crossover office, it is done automatically.

Note that only these two file types I open in wine. The rest gets handled by Open Office.

Re:Incidentally... (5, Informative)

AchiIIe (974900) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089894)

This is a very early beta. Essentially the way they allow one to boot from the "Boot Camp" partition is by adding an extra field in the Boot.ini file and by creating a new hardware profile (mainly used on docked notebooks)

The beta is far from complete, I just tried it on my boot camp partition and the mouse/keyboard were unresponsive. (Even after installing the given tools)

Moreover each time you switch between parallels and boot camp Windows is deactivated Thus I have to go through the reactivation procedure each time !!! i've done this about three times already and I'm afraid it'll just stop allowing me to reactivate it (even though it's a legitimate license)

Re:Incidentally... (5, Insightful)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090258)

i've done this about three times already and I'm afraid it'll just stop allowing me to reactivate it (even though it's a legitimate license)

So you have a bought and paid for copy of Windows and they've made you afraid to use it. Seems like there's a moral in there somewhere.

Re:Incidentally... (1)

Klaidas (981300) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089968)

Well, yes. A lot of cool things could be done on linux if developers wanted to do it...
As for now, you might want to take a look at VMware - although I still prefer dual booting

Re:Incidentally... (3, Informative)

friedmud (512466) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090298)

what do you mean?

This is the default with Wine... and I believe it's also the way crossover office works. You have to go in and specify that you want a "desktop" to get one. Also... the window borders with wine are actually drawn using your window manager in linux... so you don't even get the ugly XP titlebar and stuff.

So what "feature" is it that is missing from Wine that you see here?

Friedmud

Re:Incidentally... (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090652)

Good point - I know it's do-able. Crossover for Mac, which is based around WINE, puts the OS X skin on Windows apps. It's not able to replace the File/Edit/Options/Help menubar and stick it in the shared one at the top that OS X has, but it makes it more of a subtle change that keeps things consistent.

Now that I've looked at the screenshots, though, it's almost the exact opposite of what's happening here by the sounds of it. So I just got the new beta... and it doesn't seem to want to enable the new coherence mode. However, there are plenty of other subtle changes that seem to be for the better.

The (new, as far as I can remember) transporter tool sounds like the perfect thing for new users and switchers - run a Windows .exe on a computer and it'll create a VM image that you can copy over to your new Mac. Or so it's described anyways, I haven't tried it.

Slowdowns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17089670)

Won't this have the extreme slowdowns of other virtualizations?

Re:Slowdowns? (4, Interesting)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089748)

Actually, with modern multi-core processors and oodles of RAM, virtualization kicks pretty much ass. When I run parallels in fullscreen mode on my macbook, you pretty much can't tell it's virtualized. It's more responsive than the dell desktop sitting in my office at work. The only thing you really notice is that the video card doesn't support hardware acceleration, so stuff like games suck. Then again, the video card in my macbook is pretty crappy, so even with 3d support they would suck =/

GPU access (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089900)

You'd think that in, say, full-screen mode that there's be some way for Apple to open a hole so that Parallels/Windows could get direct access to the video card.

Re:GPU access (4, Informative)

Poltras (680608) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090074)

This is under development by major virtualization companies. VMWare supports it for windows as guest (in beta), and Parallels has said that it was under development for a future release. This is harder than it looks though, since you have to develop a full blown 3d driver for windows and Linux (used inside your virtualized environment) that will send the calls to the host operating systems, in the case of windows transferring DirectX calls to the OpenGL API. If you want to stay generic (to work on both hardware nvidia and ati), you have to limits the possibilities of the card, or else you'll have to make a driver for each type of card you want to support. That's the theory.

Re:Slowdowns? (2, Interesting)

cwaldrip (216578) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089942)

And, in addition to what MustardMan said, don't confuse virtualization with emulation.

Re:Slowdowns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17090474)

In fact wine stands for Wine Is Not an Emulator. It's the difference between cygwin and Virtual PC (in the windows world)

Re:Slowdowns? (3, Informative)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090136)

Emulation is slow. E.g. a PowerPC executing x86 code by emulation will be much slower than a native x86. There are tricks, like profiling the application and translating, rather than emulating the frequently used bits, but it in general there will always be a hefty penalty. And modern performance critical code will use multimedia instructions which don't have 1:1 mappings to a different instruction set.

But on an Intel Mac none of this is an issue, since the Windows app and a mac one run on exactly the same instruction set. Of course, the API the applications use will be completely different. Virtualisation is about running two kernels simultaneously on the same hardware. Now this is tricky, because OS kernels want to be in sole control of the hardware. The x86 isn't completely self virtualisable, i.e. you can't trap and emulate all the instructions you need to fool the kernel, so you go back to profiling and translating, at least for kernel mode code. Or you can trap many more instructions than you need to. But recent intel chips have a technology called VT which plugs the holes and allows self virtualisation.

So you can run the guest kernel code at full speed, and trap and emulate just enough to keep the guest OS under control of the hypervisor.

Re:Slowdowns? (1)

Peter Cooper (660482) | more than 6 years ago | (#17091064)

For reference, Windows XP boots in 7 seconds under Parallels on my iMac. Funny thing is, it takes longer to restore from a snapshot!

DRM Angle? (2, Funny)

CheeseburgerBrown (553703) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089674)

Are these guys in Microsoft's pocket with some kind of authorization for the WindowsOS itself, or can I just go on exploiting the fruits of Swedish piracy?

Also, does it come in different colours? Because I know some girls who use Macs. They like their GUI to match their purses.

Re:DRM Angle? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089720)

They like their GUI to match their purses.

They like their guys to match their purses? So they have a different guy for every day or do they keep the same old sack?

Re:DRM Angle? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089732)

Also, does it come in different colours? Because I know some girls who use Macs. They like their GUI to match their purses.

They need to learn how to switch Windows XP visual styles. :-)

This is Windows XP [oxygen-inc.com] . :-p

Re:DRM Angle? (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089854)

This is Windows XP. :-p

How about an example which doesn't make my eyes want to die?

Jesus, when making XP themes people seem to be completely incapable of making something that eyesplittingly gaudy...

Re:DRM Angle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17089906)

Is that actually supposed to look good, or were you trying to be funny? I feel like taking a toothbrush to my eyes after viewing it.

Parallels Vs. VMWare (0, Troll)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089710)

I have to do software development for Windows, Macintosh, and Linux simultaneously.

I came *THIS CLOSE* (holds fingers close together) to buying a Macbook Pro a month ago - it was the lack of a right mouse button and non-native support for Linux that killed it for me.

However, I've been waiting for VMWare to come out with a decent release for OSX - the ability to have a portable Windows install that works on any of the three platforms would just ROCK.

But, with features like this, it seems that Parallels is keeping "one step ahead" of their 300-lb competitor... Features such as this would be TOTALLY AWESOME if VMWare were to come out with it for their workstation product. (Can you imagine IE 7 and IE6 as standalone programs on a KDE desktop?!)

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (5, Informative)

MicrosoftRepresentit (1002310) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089778)

MacBooks and MacBookPro's do support right mouse buttons. Tap one finger on the touch pad for left click, tap two fingers for right click (and drag two fingers around the trackpad for scrolling, or zooming with Control pressed).

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090034)

Is that built into the firmware/hardware, or is it a function of the touchpad driver? Does it still behave that way when fully booted into Windows or Linux?

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (4, Informative)

phillymjs (234426) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090196)

It's driver dependent. Support for it is built right into OS X, the latest Boot Camp beta adds a trackpad driver so you can do it in Windows as well. As for Linux, I have no idea-- there are certainly no Apple-provided drivers.

~Philly

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (0)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090588)

Thanks for the info. That's pretty much what I figured the situation was, but I wanted confirmation.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (1)

mccalli (323026) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090200)

It's a function of the driver - there are drivers for both Windows and Linux however, and they both support the right-clicking functionality.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (1)

HolyCause (936755) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090132)

Or you could just attach a two button mouse via a USB port...

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (5, Insightful)

SoulRank (990597) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089824)

I came *THIS CLOSE* (holds fingers close together) to buying a Macbook Pro a month ago - it was the lack of a right mouse button and non-native support for Linux that killed it for me.
Something tells me your intent to buy the Macbook Pro wasnt put off by the lack of the right mouse button. Firstly the Macbook Pro doenst come with mouse because it's a notebook. Secondly, OSX supports just about any USB 2 and 3 button mice.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (0, Redundant)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089860)

Many people use their laptops in places not condusive to using a separate mouse. Not having three mouse buttons and a track point is a major reason not to get one.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (3, Interesting)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090008)

Well, my solution may be a bit much for some people but, I bought one of those miniature cordless travel mice with the little usb stick that you plug in and just disassembled the little mouse to make it as small as possible (basically a circuit board and a couple of buttons) then just stuck it on my mac beside the trackpad just far enough to be out of the way but with the right and middle mouse buttons conveniently located to use when necessary.

It's so small, it doesn't get in the way at all. I used the kind of adhesive that doesn't leave residue when you pull it off and you can keep sticking it on over and over. I don't know, works for me.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090360)

Can also get a Blootooth mouse, that "Just Works"... there are a few out there, since the Macbook has built in Bluetooth, no need for a usb dongle hanging off your laptop.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090460)

That's what I did at first. Didn't work too well for me for some reason. Maybe I just had a bum mouse but the setup I have now works better. I never lose the signal and I can live with the dongle.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090600)

wild, I have a few friends using the Belkin Bluetooth mouse and it's been working great for them.. *shrug* as long as it works for you.. :) just surprised the bluetooth didn't cut it.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (2, Funny)

ModernGeek (601932) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090660)

Do you have pictures of it? I'd also like to see your desktop/setup at home, sounds "l33t" :)

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (1)

thestuckmud (955767) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090788)

Not having three mouse buttons and a track point is a major reason not to get one.
Whatever floats your boat. On the other hand, many people won't see a need for the extra buttons.

I run a VNC (desktop sharing) server on my windows box so I can interact with windows programs from my MacBook Pro. Recently, I've noticed that I spend far more time using windows-based CAD/CAM software this way rather than directly on the windows box. Right button clicks are easily simulated. The middle button is useful with this program, but not necessary, and I find myself working just as well without it.

Ergonomically, I have come around to the belief that the single button is very nice. Two button laptops now feel uncomfortable, requiring a little stretch of the thumb for every left click. As for trackpoints, I'm willing to call that personal preference. More power to you if you don't get a sore index finger using them.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (1, Insightful)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089870)

Just an FYI, but the new MacBook Pros have a "right-click" control panel option whereby if you put two fingers on the pad while you click the button it's interpreted as a right click. Much easier to do than say, and no more "control-click". And the Parallels/Boot Camp drivers for Windows look for this as well.

As to Linux... well, it's open source. Just change the driver yourself. ;)

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (4, Interesting)

silverdr (779097) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089896)

What do you call "non-native support for Linux"?! Apple laptops run linux _as natively as it goes_ for ages and this doesn't exclude the Intel based machines. I even could setup a triple-boot on an Intel based Mac (vs. all the dual-boots I had in the past). All running "natively" of course

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (1, Troll)

proxy318 (944196) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089954)

I think he's referring to the fact that Intel Macs use EFI instead of BIOS, which makes it tricky to load anything other than MacOS. Bootcamp lets you run Windows, but as far as I know, it's still a PITA to get Linux to run on any Intel Mac.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17089988)

> I think he's referring to the fact that Intel Macs use EFI instead of BIOS,
> which makes it tricky to load anything other than MacOS.

http://elilo.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090224)

Intel Macs' EFI can function as a BIOS, and will run Linux fine. This feature was added at the same time as boot camp (the drivers), but it works fine with any OS. It's quite simple to get Linux to run on an Intel Mac.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (1)

silverdr (779097) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090244)

I see. It's not that much of a PITA - various explanations on how to do it are available on the web and quite understandable. Following them is a matter of minutes, rather than hours, but of course HMMV.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (2, Interesting)

proxy318 (944196) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089966)

(Can you imagine IE 7 and IE6 as standalone programs on a KDE desktop?!)
You can - http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/news/ [tatanka.com.br] It's in beta now, but it does support IE6 and IE7's rendering engine.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (5, Funny)

bgerlich (1035008) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089990)

Can you imagine IE 7 and IE6 as standalone programs on a KDE desktop?!
I did, once. Woke up sweaty and screaming.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (1)

LiquidFire_HK (952632) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090140)

(Can you imagine IE 7 and IE6 as standalone programs on a KDE desktop?!)
You mean like this [imageshack.us] ?

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (1)

jsjacob (94841) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090220)

Holding the Command/Apple key while clicking is the equivalent to right-clicking. Or as others have said, you can plug in (or Bluetooth) your own mouse with 2/3/4/5/* buttons. I use both of these techniques when I remote-desktop into my Win XP machine from my PowerBook G4.

Control, not command (2, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090726)

It's the control key, not the Apple key, that defines a click as a righ mouse button.

And once you get use to it, you realize that chording is far better than hacking a second button onto a laptop - your hand is always resting by the key anyway, and it makes for a much larger mouse button target to hit with no confusion.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17090412)

Dude, two finger tap. Tap the pad with one finger and it's a normal click (left click, for a windows user). Tap the pad with two fingers and it's a context click (right click for windows users). The two finger scroll is also nice. slide on the pad with two fingers and it scrolls the active window (sideways or up and down, whatever)

Combined with hot cornered expose options, it makes the most out of small real-estate (laptop screen). Expose + hot corners drops off in usefulness on large high-res screens. I also find the single menu bar to be less useful on really large high res screens; annoyingly far to keep dragging the mouse.

Actually, when I go back to my Windows machines my workflow slows way down because expose and advanced trackpad options aren't there (and yes, I have utility widgets that add expose-like functionality). I use about 40% Ubuntu (programming), 30% mac (business applications), 30% windows (graphics applications). I'd use less windows except I have really fast Athlon processors and GPUs in my main workstation and my ThinkPad T42P has a FireGL2 and 1600x1200 making it a good portable platform for graphics development. Too bad, since I like the OSX desktop better (yields faster workflow in most cases). I'd replace my Athlon based workstation with a MacPro except: the MacPro is more expensive compared to a similarly powerful AMD based system *and* the mac versions of the applications aren't yet native x86 and for 3 of them I'd have to pay to "upgrade" to a downlevel version on a different platform. Fargin' iceholes.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (1)

Phoobarnvaz (1030274) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090444)

Can you imagine IE 7 and IE6 as standalone programs on a KDE desktop?!

While you can't run IE 7 in Linux yet...IE 6/Flash 9 & below is certainly possible with Wine from any desktop at the following address:
http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/downloads/ies4 linux-2.0.tar.gz [tatanka.com.br]

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17090510)

it was the lack of a right mouse button

You obviously didn't get close enough. The MacBook Pro's trackpad is multi-point, meaning you can right-click just by putting another finger on the pad. Also, you can scroll up/down left/right the same way.

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17090796)

no native linux support ? what are you talking about exactly here..
linux runs NATIVELY on x86, doesn't matter if its a mac or a regular pc.
for the record, linus uses a g5 (powerpc)

Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17090848)

I came *THIS CLOSE* (holds fingers close together) to buying a Macbook Pro a month ago - it was the lack of a right mouse button and non-native support for Linux that killed it for me.

Well, concerning the mouse buttons...

When I bought a Powerbook 1 1/2 years ago I concidered the fact that there was only one button below the trackpad as the major shortcoming. But after starting to use the notebook, I realised that just doing CTRL+Click as a replacement was not inconvenient at all. When I use a separate mouse, having several buttons is convinient, because you have your fingers on them anyway, But with the track pad, I ususally don't, and just pressing the one big button with the thumb while pressing CTRL (if necessary) is not more inconvenient than the additional gymnastics required to select the right button in the first place. The MacBook feature (1- and 2-finger click) might be even nicer, but I don't have it.

Summary: despite being sceptical initially, I don't miss additional buttons below my track pad at all.

Parallels Desktop simply kicks ass (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17089714)

The constant improvement that this product has seen in its short existence is astounding. When you consider that it costs only $80 and has no competition at this time, it almost seems like they're working too hard on it.

If Parallels was publicly traded, I'd be buying up a lot of their stock. These features are too damned useful for Apple to not add to OS X at some point, and the best way would be for them to just whip out the checkbook and buy the company.

I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17089786)

For charity?
Out of good will?
Because of indignant responses from hardcore Mac fans?

Maintaining a separate Cocoa code base for a product, buy and support expensive Mac hardware, maintain Mac software engineers

or let Mac users run our app from Parallels...

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17089888)

And how many of your "customers" will respond to your lack of a Mac version by pirating the Windows version instead, since you "obviously don't want their business"?

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089908)

or let Mac users run our app from Parallels...
Good luck with that. As a Mac user, there is no way I would buy an app that didn't integrate properly with the rest of my desktop, much less one that required parallels. Unless you wanted to bundle the $80 Parallels license and the $100 Windows license with your app, of course...

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17089934)

So... you fit squarely into the third category the poster already called out: "Because of indignant responses from hardcore Mac fans?"

Fanboys are all alike, you know.

Takes one to know one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17090060)

Pot, meet kettle.

Re:Takes one to know one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17090190)

Me, a fanboy? Hardly. Reserve such pretentious comments like this for those deserving.

My wife talked me into getting a Mac because of iMovie. I gave in and am in many ways regretting it.

Any more pot shots?

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17090004)

Cost to develop Windows version == Base Cost

Cost to develop Mac version == Mac engineers + Mac hardware + Mac specific internal support + Mac version external support staff/training

Parallels/BootCamp eliminates all those Mac related costs and only risks losing sales to Mac diehards. Dumping the Mac version of your product is just basic business sense.

Return from small number of people who refuse to run app under Parallels Mac development overhead

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (1)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090592)

I don't use Windows or Mac OS X, but you're lying to yourself if you think someone's going to spend an extra 200 bucks just so they can run your poorly integrated software inside a VM. The best you can hope for is to test your app in WINE, and make sure that works, but either way, you're cutting off the indignant Mac fanboy market plus the average user who doesn't want to jump through hoops market.

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17089994)

Mod parent up.

I have this very dilemma with Quicken. I just bought a MacBook and let me tell you: Quicken '07 Mac sucks ass. Way short on just about every feature that the Windows version offers.

So I have to ask them: how could they possibly have such disparate code bases? What are they thinking? The Mac version doesn't even read PC files. That's something even Microsoft was able to fix with their Office products 10+ years ago.

So if I want them to get the hint at all, my only option is to pirate the Window version. Paying for the Windows version only gives them more reason to maintain the shoddy product that is their Mac version. Or discontinue it.

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (1)

gsnedders (928327) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090036)

Give a user a choice between a native OS X app, or one that relies on virtualisation. Almost all users will choose the native app.

If you're competitor offers one and you don't, you ain't gonna sell well.

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (2, Insightful)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090052)

Uh, because you think it is the best environment in which to develop? Other than the market share of the platform that's the only other relevant consideration. It may actually make Apple work harder to make Cocoa more appealing.

P.S. You also lose points for having zero originality. This argument is ancient and all of the trade-offs are well known.

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (5, Insightful)

idiot900 (166952) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090054)

or let Mac users run our app from Parallels...
Not this Mac user. I bought a Mac because I like the way a Mac works. To use your app, I'd have buy a copy of Windows and a copy of Parallels, and then run them - and some people think the Java VM is bloated! And I'd have to deal with the Windows app not being well integrated with the rest of the system. The only way this will work is if there is no serious competition in your market segment.

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090482)

Well, the file system cost of windows and parallels is pretty negligable on an 80+ GB hard drive... The app would have its' own footprint in any case. As for integration to the desktop, this is a big one for a lot of people. However, I know far more mac users that have virtual pc (ppc mac) or parallels (intel mac) than those without it... so there must be some room for people running their windows programs on mac.

As for any performance overhead, xp on parallels works very well, the key is to have enough memory to give the parallels instance at or above 512mb. (I do 768 on my ubuntu desktop with vmware, and it works out fine)... Some of us need the windows apps that will never be available natively. Parallels makes that possible.

Honestly, if a company isn't that big, and is developing software, it may be excessively costly to maintain a mac version. Though with mono (.Net) and cocoa#, it's not too hard, and with the Java bindings for cocoa in mac, it's even easier. I am uncertain about python. So for apps that will fit well into a virtualized/managed environment like .net or java, it is easy enough... Unfortunately most applications have their roots elsewhere, which makes it more difficult.

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (2, Insightful)

jeffbax (905041) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090096)

Well, the fact that as a Mac user there is no way in hell I would ever buy software for the sole purpose in running it in Virtualization - maybe that might be a reason.

I bang my head when this argument (or those like it) come up. Ohh Macs can boot Windows now, who's going to write Mac software! Sorry, but except for games, there is *nothing* that will get me to leave OS X.

I challenge you to build such an amazing piece of software that I would be compelled to buy it for an OS I hate booting, because to me Virtualization is solely a means to test my websites in IE.

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17090206)

You would write Mac software because that is the only software that most Mac users will actually consider buying. Parallels is mostly useful for running Windows software they already own, to smooth the transition to Mac OS X. If you write Windows software only then the vast majority of Mac users won't even consider your software when contemplating the purchase of new software -- they'll seek out the Mac OS-based alternatives.

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17090266)

Sure...that's why BootCamp/Parallels to run Windows apps is the hottest Mac news item ever since IBM dumped Apple and forced them to turn to Intel for x86 chips...

because Mac users refuse to run Windows apps...

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17090320)

I would agree with everyone here that says users prefer native apps whole heartedly. Quicken is the so-called "killer app" for me. I just blindly took the plunge and bought a MacBook Pro and quickly found out that a financial institution has to explicitly support Quicken Mac since that statement formats are apparently different for the Mac and Windows versions. Since not all of my financial institutions support Quicken Mac, I have to use Quicken Windows...under Parallels. Trust me, I absolutely hate it. And I am going to actually move my money to financial institutions that support Quicken Mac just so that I do not have to use Quicken Windows. I am far more loyal to my MBP than I ever will be to any investment house.

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (1)

mackyrae (999347) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090356)

Maintaining a separate Cocoa code base for a product, buy and support expensive Mac hardware, maintain Mac software engineers

because then Linux can use it too if you're using Objective C because GNUStep uses Cocoa too.

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (1)

Deadguy2322 (761832) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090494)

And we all know how linux users LOVE to pay for saoftware....

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (1)

topham (32406) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090574)


Only if your application has limited functionality.

The fact is that Apple has been adding more and more frameworks, and the last time I looked to see what the compatibility was outside of "OS X" it was dismal.

I doubt it has improved.

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (3, Interesting)

Epicyon (777863) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090624)

This is the reason I would offer: As soon as a competitor's product to the one you're offering is available natively on the Mac, you'll lose customers. While I agree virtualization is now offering acceptable performance for many Windows-only applications, this virtualization does not integrate well with a Mac user's workflow. Once a native version is available, users will switch. And as Macs gain mind-share and market-share, if this competitive product has cross-platform support, the prospects grow slimmer for single-platform applications. Now I realize the difficulties in coding for multiple platforms, however there are cross platform frameworks available today to assist with just such endeavors. And while it's likely significant effort, depending on the vendor, it may be a strategic decision to rewrite an app so it's cross platform. As a point of reference, I'm currently involved in a project which has two major suppliers of a particular function. One has slightly more bells and whistles, the other is cross platform with support for Windows, Linux, and OS X. Both have similar market share, but the client selected the platform with cross platform support over the platform with a bit more functionality. Just something to think about.

Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17090832)

For the same reason that people upgraded their "Classic" apps to OSX ...
For the same reason that people upgraded their "Rosetta" apps to Universal Binaries ...
It's the speed, stupid!

Because Mac owners buy software (2, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090850)

Writing software that requires Parallels is still cutting out a large part of the market as you have to pay for Parallels AND Windows, and the extra resources a whole XP installation running requires puts more strain on a laptop which is already constrained for resources.

I use parallels to run the things that Mac that I simply cannot any other way. When looking for software I look mac specific because it interacts better with other programs, and also makes use of many key underlying operating system features (like spell checking in text boxes)

It's this last argument that is really important - going forward more and more really nice system resources are availiable to the user of any Cocoa program (or even plain Mac app). If you distribute a Windows app to sell to Mac users under Leopard they are not geing to be able to take advanatge of Time Machine. You could get some of these features with Vista but now you are talking about hundreds of doallrs extra to run your app on a Mac - and that leaves the market wide open for competition.

not new (-1, Offtopic)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089802)

so it does what Window Blinds has been doing for years?

Re:not new (1)

MDaniszewski (589340) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089874)

I don't think you fully grasp what Parallels does....
It's not a mechanism to replace the "look" of the OS.

It's *BETA* for a Reason (4, Informative)

waldoj (8229) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089810)

I installed this as soon as it came out, as did many other Mac users. My Mac (mini DP Intel 1.67GHz, 2GB RAM) slowed to a crawl as soon as I launched it. I had to yank the power cable. I uninstalled it and all was well. This is a common experience [macintouch.com] . If you're just going to try out a new version, cool, go for it, maybe it'll go well. But please understand that it's a beta -- don't plan on getting any work done with this.

Re:It's *BETA* for a Reason (1)

PetieG (455553) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089948)

just installed on MBP and it runs like the parallels of old. I literally had to laugh at what an ingenious idea this 'coherence' is... F* it... i'm going to run both all of the time now just to see how it is. after all, with this level of "integration" it pretty much makes it a seamless experience to some degree. I had originally installed BootCamp way back after it was first released then realized i didn't really need Windoze that bad... but now, if i can share a BootCamp XP partition with a Parallels instance -- why not? Looks like some users are having problems with the bootcamp instance and parallels (esp. corporate versions) so i may just wait a little bit longer to try that out. Kudos to parallels!!

Windows is the new Classic (4, Interesting)

GreatDrok (684119) | more than 6 years ago | (#17089912)

I've installed it and it is very similar to Classic on PPC macs under OS X. As with OS 9 apps on OS X, a full copy of the operating system is running, but the windows are drawn directly to the desktop (or at least appear to, with some glitching at the moment). I have the Windows task bar running down the left hand side of my screen so it doesn't get in the way of my dock (at the bottom) and desktop icons (to the right). Running Windows with the classic theme looks better as the shaped edges of Windows apps leave a little triangle of the Windows desktop which looks a bit poor. Lighten up the theme and it works quite nicely on the OS X desktop.

Apple really needs to buy Parallels or do something similar. It would make a huge difference to people moving from Windows to the Mac and eventually, Windows could go the same way as Classic MacOS has under OS X and just fade away. I don't think MS would be very pleased with this development though :-)

Re:Windows is the new Classic (1)

MicrosoftRepresentit (1002310) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090184)

Does auto-hide still work on the Windows task bar?

Re:Windows is the new Classic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17090372)

Does auto-hide still work on the Windows task bar?
Yes.

Re:Windows is the new Classic (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090552)

I was wondering the same thing... as for MS being upset, I don't know.. they're still getting license fees from the copies being installed on parallels... actually was standing next to a guy at Fry's Electronics on friday that was buying a copy of windows for use with parallels and boot camp...

Re:Windows is the new Classic (1)

flooey (695860) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090328)

Apple really needs to buy Parallels or do something similar. It would make a huge difference to people moving from Windows to the Mac and eventually, Windows could go the same way as Classic MacOS has under OS X and just fade away. I don't think MS would be very pleased with this development though :-)

You never know. As long as running Windows in Parallels requires a copy of Windows that's purchased from Microsoft, they're still getting their money. Parallels is an interesting situation for Microsoft, as it means that some portion of the folks buying Macs are paying them for Windows anyway (and at retail prices at that, which is much more profitable for Microsoft than OEM).

Re:Windows is the new Classic (2, Insightful)

GreatDrok (684119) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090728)

"You never know. As long as running Windows in Parallels requires a copy of Windows that's purchased from Microsoft, they're still getting their money. Parallels is an interesting situation for Microsoft, as it means that some portion of the folks buying Macs are paying them for Windows anyway (and at retail prices at that, which is much more profitable for Microsoft than OEM)."

That isn't the problem for MS. Lets put it this way. I own four Macs and recently got rid of my only PC because I could now do everything I needed to using the Macs. If absolutely necessary, I can boot Windows in Parallels to run a specific piece of software just like I used to with OS9 apps but, just as I stopped buying OS9 apps, I also won't be buying Windows software even though I can run it. My preference is for OSX apps and I'm sure I'm not alone. What this does is it makes Windows a legacy system and legacy systems fade away eventually. MS might well be making good money off Windows sales to Mac users for the moment but what if more and more people buy Macs and prefer to buy OSX software? Well, software companies will fill the need and eventually these people will find that they don't need Windows any more so they will stop installing it. If that happens, the MS monopoly will be broken. MS really should be scared (I bet they are too). Windows isn't popular because it is good (it isn't) but because it has many many apps. Those apps can now run nicely on a Mac so people can buy a Mac without missing out on the apps but native ones are much nicer so once the move to Mac is made, the desire to purchase Windows software will decline and the market will notice.

Re:Windows is the new Classic (2, Informative)

ronanbear (924575) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090776)

Microsoft have prevented all but the most expensive versions of Vista (Ultimate) from running within a virtual machine.

They seem quite concerned about virtualisation but are going for the high taxation approach to keeping it from becoming significant.

That could be Parallels biggest problem over the next few years. A $399 Windows license + $80 + extra RAM (recommended) for Parallels is a lot for someone who doesn't absolutely need it. Might be cheaper to buy a separate Windows desktop/laptop if you need Windows that badly.

It's still a great product but it will be a much smaller niche at those prices. Using Bootcamp you just buy the cheapest Vista license if you can get away with it.

VMWare Fusion - Coherency? (1)

Nutsquasher (543657) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090082)

Does anyone know if VMWare Fusion (for Mac) is going to have something like the "Coherency" feature? Also, is the Parallels Coherency feature for Windows-only, or can it be used with Linux in, say, an X/KDE or X/GNOME configuration?

updates (2, Insightful)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090088)

I'm not that happy with their charging for program updates after a year's passed since you purchase it. I understand it costs the company to generate updates, but I'm certain that Microsoft and/or Apple will produce their own updates that will break Parallels. Updates will be a necessity, and I'm hesitant to buy a product that will generate a long-term expense on my part in order to keep using it.

Re:updates (1)

John Betonschaar (178617) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090682)

I'm not that happy with their charging for program updates after a year's passed since you purchase it. I understand it costs the company to generate updates, but I'm certain that Microsoft and/or Apple will produce their own updates that will break Parallels. Updates will be a necessity, and I'm hesitant to buy a product that will generate a long-term expense on my part in order to keep using it.

I have been using parallels from the first RC, bought it the moment it was released and got all updates except this one for free. Also, I got Parallels Compressor ($79) along with Parallels workstation, again without having to pay for it. So I think it's safe to say Parallels is actually very considerate with point-updates.

Also I'd like to repeat what other Parallels users have said in this topic: Parallels workstation just absolutely rocks! I was a long-time VMWare fan (their software is also really good), but Parallels is even better. Every time I start my XP VM I'm hugely impressed by the performance and stability of this product. For example: XP pro boots in less then 6 seconds and runs without any noticeable performance hit for either the guest or the host OS (this is on a Dual Core iMac BTW). Just make sure you have at least 1GB of RAM, preferably more. I would even go as far as saying that Parallels workstation is one of, if not *the* best application I've ever used on any platform.

Re:updates (2, Informative)

wavedeform (561378) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090810)

Well, that can be said about pretty much any software. New OS releases (and new hardware releases) have a fairly good chance of breaking some piece of software you might have. Apple is one of the worst offenders, actually. Moving from a PowerBook to a MacBook Pro caused me to need two paid upgrades to Apple software, one if which I bought (Logic Pro @ $50), and one of which I didn't (Apple Remote Desktop @ $300).

Windows activation? (3, Interesting)

mccalli (323026) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090172)

I'm running this beta build right now - have been doing all day as I do the exciting task of catching up with my accounts (Quicken UK, Windows only). There's some graphical improvements to the interface - I like the better laid-out screen for picking the VM. There's still some interface no-nos (ok button on the left? Nope, shouldn't be the case on OS X) and I think the dock icon is trying just that bit too hard when it turns into a dancing egg timer as you save a machine's state, but overall things are better and things are fine.

I upgraded from a previous install, which means I had a disk image of Windows installed rather than a real partition. What I'm wondering is how Windows would cope with being booted for real on MacBook Pro hardware one moment, then booted again in Parallels another moment. Surely that would kick Windows activation into life?

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Windows activation? (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090572)

Apparently a few people are experiencing just that...

Re:Windows activation? (1)

Epicyon (777863) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090840)

The beta announcement mentions you'll need to reactivate:

* Boot from BootCamp partition. Another long awaited feature that lets you boot your 32-bit Windows XP residing on Boot Camp partition directly in Parallels Desktop for Mac.
IMPRORTANT! You need to boot in your Windows XP natively through Boot Camp and install Parallels Tools for Boot Camp package in it before your first boot in Parallels Desktop for Mac.
NOTE! It is not possible to suspend Virtual Machine connected to Boot Camp for integrity reasons.
NOTE! Running Boot Camp in Virtual Machine will need to reactivate your Windows XP installation.

Re:Windows activation? (1)

shorshe (813926) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090638)

they say:

NOTE! Running Boot Camp in Virtual Machine will need to reactivate your Windows XP installation.
... they don't say what happens if you boot in BootCamp again

Re:Windows activation? (1)

Epicyon (777863) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090770)

I've been holding onto the hope that VMWare's offering will be released soon as the thought of completely rebuilding my current images from VMWare's format to Parallels isn't terribly pleasant. However, bundled with this beta is the beta for Parallels transporter, which allows you to "migrate" data from a running machine, including a running VMWare machine to a parallels format. I'm testing this out now. It doesn't appear terribly speedy at the moment. Migrating a 60GB image (with 20GB of data) it's been running about 15 minutes and still at the (visually) 3% mark. However, once this migration is complete I'll be trying the native boot to bootcamp. If both of these functions work in beta, definitely altering my plans on waiting for VMWare, otherwise I'll wait for the final release of this parallels beta version to make that change. ;)

Really good for Parallels (4, Interesting)

ronanbear (924575) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090542)

This is really good for Parallels and will be important for the company in several ways.

Obviously it is a big feature for users who might be interested in Boot Camp and Parallels. One license, keeping the same settings etc.

The thing that will bring the real benefits to Parallels though are related to development. Working with Boot Camp means that Parallels can access the Boot Camp drivers for Windows that Apple writes. Every time Apple updates their hardware they'll update Boot Camp with new drivers. This will make it much easier for Parallels to keep up with new hardware.

Boot Camp adds a driver for the touchpad that includes Apple's right click implementation. Suddenly it's in Parallels automagically. Apple ads a driver to operate the inbuilt iSight. Parallels can start using it too.

Shared documents are potentially great. Apple should work with Parallels to ensure things like the iTunes library (and iTS purchased music) is available in the Windows partition.

Apple have already said that they are not going to include virtualisation in Leopard because they are so happy with the performance of Parallels.

If necessary they'd buy Parallels to ensure that development keeps going on. They might do it anyway to reduce the costs.

Re:Really good for Parallels (3, Informative)

cnettel (836611) | more than 6 years ago | (#17090782)

Native hardware drivers available doesn't mean it's a piece of cake to get it working in virtualization. It might be if you, say, was ready to give up the iSight completely in OS X, and only expose it to Parallels (then you could "simply" forward the specific hardware access, instead of providing virtualized hardware), but to get it working properly, where any app, no matter what OS it's running on, can access any piece of hardware, you need much more tinkering with the hardware on the guest and/or host side than just proper native drivers for that piece of hardware in the two environments.
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>