Parallels Releases RC2 of Virtualization Program, Raises Price

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Parallels has released Release Cantidate 2 of its virtualization software, Parallels Desktop (http://www.parallels.com/en/products/desktop/). Among the new features and improvements introduced in this version is a technology called Compressor, which shrinks a guest OS's hard disk image to up to 50% of its original size.

The added features of Compressor brings added price, however. The final version will cost US $79, $30 more than the originally announced $49. Users can still pre-order the software for $39.

[mkrishnan]

Among the new features and improvements introduced in this version is a technology called Compressor, which shrinks a guest OS's hard disk image to up to 50% of it's original size.

Am I the only one reminded of DriveSpace and the early 90s at this point? :eek: I guess it could be a useful feature, though.... I would rather they concentrate their drive tech people on the capabilities to just use normal disk partitions or OS X disk image files (they don't yet, do they?).....

But it's still a great product, and I'm glad they're developing it.

[ChrisA]

I wonder if the higher price wil cause more people to loot at QEMU?
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/

[kainjow]

I wonder if the higher price wil cause more people to loot at QEMU?
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/
Would seriously doubt it.

RC2 seems to be running great for me on my MacBook. Fast as usual :)

[netdog]

While there have been the expected bumps during the beta process, it is a great piece of software. Let's remember too that Windows is far from the only guest that it enables us to run.

[Lancetx]

I wonder if the higher price wil cause more people to loot at QEMU?
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/

You can still pre-order for only $39, so the price increase hasn't taken effect yet. Besides, Parallels Desktop is light years ahead of QEMU at this point, so it's not that attractive of an alternative.

[Malcster]

Its an excellent piece of software, no wonder the price has gone up, im thinking maybe they've just realised themselves how good it is! :)

Even though i preordered at $39, i'd still pay $79 for this if i had too, virtualisation inside leopard if apple does it would be real nice, but atleast we have this if it doesnt, and it works damn well.

[DTphonehome]

I don't even have an Intel Mac, yet I'm tempted to pre-order to lock in the $39 price for when I do get a MB this summer. What do you guys think?

[hvfsl]

I don't even have an Intel Mac, yet I'm tempted to pre-order to lock in the $39 price for when I do get a MB this summer. What do you guys think?

I was actually thinking of doing the same. However I want to see what codeweavers come up with first because it looks like it might be a better solution for running Windows programs (for me at least).
http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=195&Itemid=2

It might not be quite as fast as Parallels program, but it lets you run many Windows programs in Macs OS X and should support games in the future.

[Snowy_River]

I was actually thinking of doing the same. However I want to see what codeweavers come up with first because it looks like it might be a better solution for running Windows programs (for me at least).
http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=195&Itemid=2

It might not be quite as fast as Parallels program, but it lets you run many Windows programs in Macs OS X and should support games in the future.

Wow. I could see doing both. Each with its own purpose...

[LimeiBook86]

I'm not biting...not yet. I think Apple will come out with something soon enough. It's funny, last weekend I got an Apple 166mhz DOS card for my old Mac 7200, ran Windows 98 perfectly, if you wanted to switch back to the Mac OS you just pushed a hot key and you were instantly switched while the other operating system ran in the background. I'm sure Apple can do this now, most of the intel CPUs have two physical CPUs, this shouldn't be a problem. If they can do it in 1997 they can do it now, and better of course. :D So I think I'll wait until there is an official solution from Apple. :)

[Silencio]

Am I the only one reminded of DriveSpace and the early 90s at this point? :eek:

Nah, it reminds me more of a compressed Apple .dmg image. :)

[kingtj]

To be honest, the single biggest reason I want XP on my Macbook Pro is for the games I can't play in OS X. That means I have to dual-boot into it right now. Considering Apple's BootCamp is only a beta-test snippet of code going into the next version of OS X - there are all sorts of possibilities there.

I'm afraid that at the very least, products like Parallels will become outdated as soon as OS X Leopard is released - making them only useful for those who don't want to update from Tiger.

I think the price increase is largely the realization that they need to lock in as many sales as they can, quickly. The clock is ticking on their viability.


I'm not biting...not yet. I think Apple will come out with something soon enough. It's funny, last weekend I got an Apple 166mhz DOS card for my old Mac 7200, ran Windows 98 perfectly, if you wanted to switch back to the Mac OS you just pushed a hot key and you were instantly switched while the other operating system ran in the background. I'm sure Apple can do this now, most of the intel CPUs have two physical CPUs, this shouldn't be a problem. If they can do it in 1997 they can do it now, and better of course. :D So I think I'll wait until there is an official solution from Apple. :)

[adrianm]

Am I the only one reminded of DriveSpace and the early 90s at this point? :eek: I guess it could be a useful feature, though.... I would rather they concentrate their drive tech people on the capabilities to just use normal disk partitions or OS X disk image files (they don't yet, do they?).....

But it's still a great product, and I'm glad they're developing it.
Compressor just defrags and removes unused blocks... not the same as DriveSpace, that used actually compressed blocks, IIRC.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

While they're allowed to charge whatever they want for the thing, almost doubling the price is a sure way to cause gripes and increase people "using it without paying for it" ("piracy" to those of you who aren't big readers.)

[dr_lha]

Parallels is awesome. However I do think their excuse for raising the price is bogus (adding in a package that was previously a seperate product) and they're basically cashing in on the popularity of the product, which I expect took them somewhat by surprise.

Still, it's a great product and was a steal at $50, $80 is probably more in line with what the product is worth compared to similar (VMWare) products. I already pre-ordered at $39 so I'm not to bothered by the price rise myself!

[ChrisA]

Would seriously doubt it.

I think you are right. Apple's market is people who prefer to pay for nicely packaged products. The only free software most Mac users use is what Apple is re-packaging inside of Mac OSX. I would not be surprized however if Apple includes something like QEMU if not actully QEMU itself with the next major release of Mac OS.

In the Windows PC and Linux worlds virual machines are now free. Even the leading comercial product (VMWare) has a zero price for it's desktop versions . This will happen in the mac world too.

[RichP]

Someone send me an email when any one of these virtualization/guest OS programs can run hardware graphics acceleration. Then, and only then, does it become a better solution than bootcamp for those who have a need for Windoze.

[gomakeitreal]

great minds think alike!
i haven't got an intel mac yet, but i am also tempted to pre-order a copy given the price increase. but at the same time, the increase in price gives out signal (at least to me) that leopard will have similar tech and they will become outdated.
hate that apple does not let ppl know their roadmap :mad:

[Makosuke]

Dag nabbit, I'm trying to download the DMG, but the download keeps "completing" after only 16 or so MB of data, producing a useless disk image. Obviously others aren't having this problem, so maybe I'll just wait a bit and it'll go away.

The price increase is a bit annoying, since it's obvious that they know theyr'e going to sell many, many times as many copies of this to Mac users as to Windows and Linux people put together--economy of scale dictates our version should be cheaper, if anything, but since they know the market is so hungry they can increase profit by raising the price a bit.

In any case, I suppose I can't complain since I've been using it free for almost a month and I'm only paying $40 for it, but still. And it really is a great product. The only issue I'm having is that when I suspend the virtual machine, after "defrosting" it the shared folder won't mount. I need to restart Windows to kick it back in. We'll see if this version fixes it--sure hope so, since tossing some particular file over to it is the main reason for using it. I do so hope that they'll implement a cross-system drag-and-drop like VPC has, but I'm not terribly optimistic.

Oh, and although I hate getting involved in grammar-spasms like this, I'll contribute to the apostrophe hulabaloo by linking one of my favorite little things:
http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html

[Rocketman]

hate that apple does not let ppl know their roadmap :mad:


Even a timeline-free version for major product lines would be helpful. For example they told schools they would have an eMac replacement in September-ish. That probaly prevented alot of peecee cannibalization sales.

Of course all the "sales force captive" customers were simply told whatever is next will be what is delivered now that eMacG4 was cancelled.

The virtualization thing was probalbly supposed to be a secret but the reverse engineered Boot Camp clone pretty much forced Apple to release a crippleware thing in the interim to prevent bad experences among highly motivated early adopters. Then it became MEDIA news.

So you can bet the real virtualization application is on the fast track.

Gee, I wonder if it will also run Apple][ and Mac 4.2, 7.5, and 8.6?

:)

[BWhaler]

I don't even have an Intel Mac, yet I'm tempted to pre-order to lock in the $39 price for when I do get a MB this summer. What do you guys think?

I did exactly this.

Spend money now to save 40 bucks. No brainer.

The only real risk is Apple putting the technology in Leopard. But it's a worthwhile risk, IMHO.

[mkrishnan]

Gee, I wonder if it will also run Apple][ and Mac 4.2, 7.5, and 8.6?

;)

None of those are ever going to be *virtualized* on a Core Duo. They can already be emulated, though. :)

[DTphonehome]

I did exactly this.

Spend money now to save 40 bucks. No brainer.


The question for me is: Do I really need this? I so rarely use Windows that it wouldn't be a biggie for me to just reboot on the rare occassion I need it.

But I'm the only one who can decide if if I use it enough to get this.

Can anyone give me some reasons that a very occassional Windows user would buy this, instead of using Boot Camp?

EDIT: Alright, I broke down and bought it. Another reason to get the MB sooner rather than later.

[aristobrat]

Someone send me an email when any one of these virtualization/guest OS programs can run hardware graphics acceleration. Then, and only then, does it become a better solution than bootcamp for those who have a need for Windoze.
More like Boot Camp is only a better solution for those people who need hardware accelerated graphics... ;)

[plinden]

To be honest, the single biggest reason I want XP on my Macbook Pro is for the games I can't play in OS X. That means I have to dual-boot into it right now. Considering Apple's BootCamp is only a beta-test snippet of code going into the next version of OS X - there are all sorts of possibilities there.

I'm afraid that at the very least, products like Parallels will become outdated as soon as OS X Leopard is released - making them only useful for those who don't want to update from Tiger.
Sure, but Leopard's probably close to a year away. If you need or want something now, $39 is a steal.

I use Parallels for Linux - I can do 95% of my work in OS X but I need to be able to build rpms for our Linux servers at work. I have a Windows VM but only use it for Civ II.

[gomakeitreal]

I did exactly this.

Spend money now to save 40 bucks. No brainer.

The only real risk is Apple putting the technology in Leopard. But it's a worthwhile risk, IMHO.

well, IMHO, i really think apple is putting similar tech in leopard. it should be pretty easy for apple to do it, and since apple is trying kinda aggressively to gain market share, there is high chance that they will offer this boot-camp alternative to non-gamer windows user. (who will want to dual-boot if one does not have to???)

[dr_lha]

Can anyone give me some reasons that a very occassional Windows user would buy this, instead of using Boot Camp?
Well for one you don't have to repartition your hard drive. I run Parallels with a disk file on an external USB drive and it works fine. I wouldn't want Windows taking up precious space on my internal HD.

[DrFrankTM]

Even if Leopard is only six months away, Parallels can be worth its price if you'll be making a heavy use of it. I know I'll be getting it as soon as my Mac Mini gets here.

Does anyone know how long it might be before they release the official version and we're forced to pay the full price? Also, just to be sure, can I just buy the software now, download it to my iBook, and install it on my Mini when it finally gets here? I won't be installing it on my iBook, but I'd rather not pay 80$ for something that I can get for 40.

Sure, but Leopard's probably close to a year away. If you need or want something now, $39 is a steal.

I use Parallels for Linux - I can do 95% of my work in OS X but I need to be able to build rpms for our Linux servers at work. I have a Windows VM but only use it for Civ II.

[cwoloszynski]

I hate to say it, but I really think that the price increase will drive me away from this tool. At $49.99 it was a good price for a good product. However, for $70+, I expect a lot more functionality, like iWork or iLife package of goods.

I have been espousing Parallels at work, but I am now hard-pressed to push it at this price.

My camel's back is broken :-(.

Charlie

[aristobrat]

However, for $70+, I expect a lot more functionality, like iWork or iLife package of goods.
FWIW, the same functionality for Windows (VMWare Workstation) is $189.00

[BWhaler]

The question for me is: Do I really need this? I so rarely use Windows that it wouldn't be a biggie for me to just reboot on the rare occassion I need it.

But I'm the only one who can decide if if I use it enough to get this.

Can anyone give me some reasons that a very occassional Windows user would buy this, instead of using Boot Camp?

EDIT: Alright, I broke down and bought it. Another reason to get the MB sooner rather than later.

You know, I started reading this post, and I felt stupid for buying Parallels.

You're right, I don't use or really need Windows anymore.

But them I read your edit, and remembered that I am geek who likes to have options. Sure, I may never install anything in the Windows partition except for security patches from Microsoft, but it's nice to have the option.

But it is nice to know there are geeks like me out there...we're not always rational. :-)

[DTphonehome]

...I may never install anything in the Windows partition except for security patches from Microsoft...

That should keep you busy on a near-daily basis!

[macenforcer]

I have Parallels dektop running xp on my macbook and I can say it is very stable and solid and its only RC2. I got in on the $39 and thats a deal IMHO. Its fast and easy and best thing about it is that you can back up a whole XP install with software and files onto a drive and its one file. Great for the day you get an xp virus. Just drag it over, no sweat. I think this is the greatest software out there.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

Nay, hourly!

Best thing about the VM is that you can copy it and when (not if!) the windows machine barfs, you just junk it and move to the copy. That right there is reason to use an OSX-based VM as opposed to a dedicated box.

That should keep you busy on a near-daily basis!

[BWhaler]

Nay, hourly!

Best thing about the VM is that you can copy it and when (not if!) the windows machine barfs, you just junk it and move to the copy. That right there is reason to use an OSX-based VM as opposed to a dedicated box.

That's a great point, and I never really thought about it that way.

I am going to install XP, every patch on the planet they have (in the gigs, and I am not kidding) and then back up the file.

As I said in my earlier post, I don't really need to do anything with XP anymore, but it's nice to have the option.

[reflex]

More like Boot Camp is only a better solution for those people who need hardware accelerated graphics... ;)

And a better sound driver.

[bankshot]

Nice update.

Full screen mode is much better in this version. The first release candidate had some annoyances, like where it would change the Mac resolution every time the virtual machine changed resolution. I'd shutdown XP in full screen, it would get to the lower res shutdown screen and change the Mac resolution to fit, and then all my Safari/Terminal/etc windows would be squished vertically! :eek: Now there's a preference to prevent that. :cool:

One oddity was that I had to completely uninstall the previous version before installing RC2. I don't recall seeing any instructions to do that, but RC2 kept complaining that it couldn't start the hypervisor or something like that, until I did the full uninstall/reinstall. If that was truly necessary, they should have made it more clear.

I find the price increase interesting. My take is that they did it mostly to get more people to preorder. Missing out on a $10 savings isn't a travesty if you procrastinated and forgot to preorder. Missing out on $40, now half the price, is definitely a bigger deal. It certainly got me off my butt to preorder last night instead of waiting any longer! :D

[Malcster]

Does anyone know how long it might be before they release the official version and we're forced to pay the full price? Also, just to be sure, can I just buy the software now, download it to my iBook, and install it on my Mini when it finally gets here? I won't be installing it on my iBook, but I'd rather not pay 80$ for something that I can get for 40.

The Beta's and RC's of Parallels have been updated roughly every 2 weeks, so you probably have till mid june (but don't hold me to it!) :)

[matznentosh]

Have they fixed the problem of reading CD's yet? I understand previously you couldn't just insert a Windows cd but had to make a disk image and run that.

I am asking because I need a pc for work running Windows 2000, the IT department restricts it and uses some sort of specially configured cd to limit port access, set up fire wall, etc. I figure Parallels is better than Boot camp, since it can run 2000, but the IT department will walk away if there is anything out of the ordinary about setting up the computer. Anyway, I really want to be able to switch back and forth rather than reboot. Most of my work I do on the Mac, I just can't get IT to connect it to the network. So if I can get Parallels running and connected, I can switch into PC mode for the small number of things I need to do (scheduling program mainly), then switch back.

Oh, and did I mention, I don't have a MacIntel yet...which is why I'm asking instead of just going ahead and trying it out for myself. But I sure want to get a MacBook, as soon as I can justify it.

[Makosuke]

Have they fixed the problem of reading CD's yet? I understand previously you couldn't just insert a Windows cd but had to make a disk image and run that.
If this was an issue, it hasn't been for at least the past three releases, which is when I first started with it. When Parallels is running by default it "takes over" the optical drive. You put a disc in, it recognizes it and/or mounts in windows, no issue. I installed XP that way--just a straight install from the discs--and once it was up and running I installed a large scientific software package from CD without issue.

Really, right from the initial OS installation it was no different from using a hardware box, and this was with an earlier beta.

If, however, you've got Parallels open and you want to use a disc with the MacOS, you need to tell it to "let go" of the drive, so to speak, at which point the disc will disappear from within Windows and appear in the Finder.

This latest RC seems to have fixed all the issues I had--works smoothly and quickly now. Freezing and resuming Windows seems notably faster, too.

[ChrisA]

I hate to say it, but I really think that the price increase will drive me away from this tool. At $49.99 it was a good price for a good product. However, for $70+, I expect a lot more functionality, like iWork or iLife package of goods.
Charlie

I've been interrested in software pricing for many years. How to choose a price? I know one person who had a software product that he got into reatail. It did not sell well so he experimented. He had some store raise the price and others lower it and watched. It turned out that raising the price actually got more units to sell. It turns out that as long as you can aford the price, people think the higher priced product must be better so they tend to buy the highest priced product they can afford. Stupid yes but people do not know much about computers and less about software so they base decisions about it on the aspects of it they DO understand.

Just look at this thread. I wrote about QEMU. It's free but do you see a stampede of mac users running to download and install it? No. they see a cardboard box and a price tag and figure price equals quality

In this case, I don't think this price increase was done to make the product look better. I figure it is to recover the development costs before Apple includes virtualization into Mac OS and the market evaporates. Kind of like no one would pay for a web browser, next year no one will pay for virtual machine software.

But still it's an interresting question: What do you charge for a product that costs nearly nothing to manufacture?

[japanime]

Something the original post fails to mention is that even after the first commercial version is released, it will still be available for the originally announced price of $49.99, at least for the first 30 days, before the new $79.99 price goes into effect.

This is according to the Parallels official forums:

As a special extended offer, we'll be offering the new, all inclusive version for $49.99 for 30 days following the general release.

You can read the full announcement here:

http://forum.parallels.com/thread2231.html

[Makosuke]

But still it's an interresting question: What do you charge for a product that costs nearly nothing to manufacture?
I've read a number of articles and "insider" discussions about sofware pricing, and most agree that it is a dark art, and in many cases doesn't even make sense by traditional laws of supply and demand. In some cases, people will buy a product just because it's more expensive so it looks more important, in others they just aren't willing to pay what a product is worth to them for one reason or another (most often these days because of good open-source projects, in others because a company destroyed the market with a product like IE for free, or iMovie for cheap on the Mac).

In any case, the theoretical correct answer to the above question from a "fair" standpoint would be "Whatever the lowest price that allows you about break even and pay you and your employees a fair wage for the work they have and will continue to do on the product."

In areas with competition, one might guess that's pretty much where the price settles--assuming development time is similar for similar products, the prices will force each other down until they hit a stable point. Nobody can afford to go lower, and products that took more work theoretically have features or polish to justify the additional cost relative to their competitors.

But when you're nearly the only product in the space, like with Parallels (current open source solutions aren't yet competitive in practical terms), you can charge whatever the market will bear, because you've got a monopoly, and often the lowest price isn't the one that makes you the most profit.

I consider MS Office to be the ultimate offensive example--it only takes a quick look at the financial statements of Microsoft to see that the office software division takes in something like four times their costs to develop products. At the volumes it sells at, Office development obviously doesn't cost a fraction of the $400 MS charges for it, yet at that price since they have wiped out nearly all competition they STILL manage to sell a license to nearly every business computer in the US, if not the world. Why charge $100 when you'd sell just as many copies at four times the price? In most other industries (or even software areas) competitive pressure would force the price down, but they've managed to create and lock in their monopoly, so they can keep the price drastically inflated. (And, I might add, use the profits to maintain the monopoly or fund monopoly development in other areas, since the US government has given up on trying to stop them.)

[iSee]

I guess I'm not suprised about the price increase. $49 was pretty cheap for what this software does, especially since they seem to like to run promotions. Anyway, the price bump got me to pre-order, which I'm sure is what they wanted :rolleyes:. This software is too useful to me to not own!

[AidenShaw]

I'm sure Apple can do this now, most of the intel CPUs have two physical CPUs, this shouldn't be a problem.
Your DOS card had separate CPU, memory, cache and I/O devices.

The dual-core Yonah shares everything except for the CPU itself.

That makes it very, very different from the DOS card.
__________________________________

Virtualization Technology is the solution, although not the way Parallels uses it.

A low-level hypervisor underneath all the operating systems is the future. OSX and Windows will be peers, both running in virtual machines controlled by the hypervisor.

[MacRumorUser]

Hopefully Parallels team will come up with a parallels tool install on Linux to improve it and make things like airport, and screen resolution work as well as it does in windows.

At $39.99 it's cheap, at $79.99 it's still a lot cheaper and far better than Virtual PC.

[Makosuke]

At $39.99 it's cheap, at $79.99 it's still a lot cheaper and far better than Virtual PC.Only half true about being cheaper; VirtualPC with no OS may cost about $120 and Parallels has some serious advantages. But if you're planning on running Windows, remember that VPC with a copy of XP Pro is "only" $215 ($250 MSRP). Buying a non-upgrade XP Pro license (which you'd have to do with Parallels if you didn't already have a license) costs $280 discount, about $300 regular price.

Now, technically the XP Pro license that comes with VPC is an "OEM" license which only runs about $150 if you can find one, and this might be legit to use with Parallels (not quite sure), but even then the total cost is $220, about the same as VPC.

This isn't to say that $80 is a ripoff, as Parallels is drastically more capable on an Intel Mac than VPC is on a PPC one, but then there's really no good comparison between the two products until MS releases a new version of VPC--it's obviously easier to run a virtual machine on the same architecture than on a different one (I'd guess cheaper to develop as well), and there is no VPC for Intel Macs yet.

[aristobrat]

there is no VPC for Intel Macs yet.
With Parallels as strong as it is, and the rumor of virtualization being included in 10.5, I'm wondering if Microsoft will even bother with VPC for Intel Macs.

[netdog]

You know, I started reading this post, and I felt stupid for buying Parallels.


With Parallels, you are equipped to run almost any OS under OS X. Don't forget too that something may come out that you really do want or need to run in the future. I don't use Data Rescue a lot, but I am glad I bought it for when I do need it. You'll be glad you have Parallels. It is an amazing utility that opens up many possibilities. As you said, it is good to have options, and I am sure you will use it.

[netdog]

With Parallels as strong as it is, and the rumor of virtualization being included in 10.5, I'm wondering if Microsoft will even bother with VPC for Intel Macs.

I doubt it.

[Phil A.]

I've been interrested in software pricing for many years. How to choose a price? I know one person who had a software product that he got into reatail. It did not sell well so he experimented. He had some store raise the price and others lower it and watched. It turned out that raising the price actually got more units to sell. It turns out that as long as you can aford the price, people think the higher priced product must be better so they tend to buy the highest priced product they can afford. Stupid yes but people do not know much about computers and less about software so they base decisions about it on the aspects of it they DO understand.

Just look at this thread. I wrote about QEMU. It's free but do you see a stampede of mac users running to download and install it? No. they see a cardboard box and a price tag and figure price equals quality

In this case, I don't think this price increase was done to make the product look better. I figure it is to recover the development costs before Apple includes virtualization into Mac OS and the market evaporates. Kind of like no one would pay for a web browser, next year no one will pay for virtual machine software.

But still it's an interresting question: What do you charge for a product that costs nearly nothing to manufacture?

QEMU is also a lot, lot slower than Parallels by virtue of the fact that even on Intel Macs it runs an Intel Emulator rather than virtualisation (the accelerator is still not available for OSX AFAIK)
I tried QEMU when I first got my MBP and it was horrendously slow (probably about the same speed as VPC on my G5). Compare that to Parallels running about 90% native speed and it's easy to see why not many people are rushing for the free solution!

[MacRumorUser]

Good point. Some people dont have a copy of XP lying around from an old pc. It's only cheaper if you already have a copy of xp.

Only half true about being cheaper; VirtualPC with no OS may cost about $120 and Parallels has some serious advantages. But if you're planning on running Windows, remember that VPC with a copy of XP Pro is "only" $215 ($250 MSRP). Buying a non-upgrade XP Pro license (which you'd have to do with Parallels if you didn't already have a license) costs $280 discount, about $300 regular price.

Now, technically the XP Pro license that comes with VPC is an "OEM" license which only runs about $150 if you can find one, and this might be legit to use with Parallels (not quite sure), but even then the total cost is $220, about the same as VPC.

This isn't to say that $80 is a ripoff, as Parallels is drastically more capable on an Intel Mac than VPC is on a PPC one, but then there's really no good comparison between the two products until MS releases a new version of VPC--it's obviously easier to run a virtual machine on the same architecture than on a different one (I'd guess cheaper to develop as well), and there is no VPC for Intel Macs yet.

[nptski]

I am a real estate agent that has been imprisoned in the windoze world of defending myself from all the malware and overhead to fight it. I started with Apple with a IIe and GUI with a LISA and had to go "dark" 7 years ago.

Now I can rejoin the enlightened and bought a Macbook the moment they hit the shelves due to Parallels great solution and Apple's great new products. I knew it was possible and they were first with a viable product. Lotus 123 may have overcome Visicalc but I was one happy camper with my 13 sector version because I could do what I wanted to do when I needed to.

So what if the raised the price, it is a great deal and for their foresight and fortitude to create and soon ship a great product, I pray they get stinking rich. It caused me to buy a the Mac I wanted and run the few vertical apps I need to and for everything else, there is my new Mac and the elegance and ease of Mac OS (sounds like a mastercard ad).

Apple is the most inovative, creative, and contributive company out there. As McKay said a long time ago, "When the user gets distracted by the operating system, creativity and productivity suffer". With a Mac, it just works!

[Multimedia]

great minds think alike!
i haven't got an intel mac yet, but i am also tempted to pre-order a copy given the price increase. but at the same time, the increase in price gives out signal (at least to me) that leopard will have similar tech and they will become outdated. hate that apple does not let ppl know their roadmap :mad:They do. Just not so far in advance that Microshaft can incorporate all of it in their copy-kat OS. :) The August 7 SF WWDC SteveNote will reveal much of what you seek.

[Roller]

Someone send me an email when any one of these virtualization/guest OS programs can run hardware graphics acceleration. Then, and only then, does it become a better solution than bootcamp for those who have a need for Windoze.

Only true if you need graphics acceleration. Parallels saves me the time needed to shut down OS X, reboot into Windows, shut down Windows, and reboot into OS X. It adds up. Plus, with Parallels I can easy cut and paste between Mac OS and Windows.

[aristobrat]

Only true if you need graphics acceleration.
Yup yup. Although that means quite a few games won't play well in Parallels, I was surprised to see that videos play perfectly fine. Now if I get a WMV that won't play in OS X, I can play it in Parallels. :)

[Billy Boo Bob]

With Parallels as strong as it is, and the rumor of virtualization being included in 10.5, I'm wondering if Microsoft will even bother with VPC for Intel Macs.
I'm thinking that they might, still. You would probably find that they can figure out a better way of integrating the two (drag and drop files from one desktop to another, etc...).

Also, there's the bit mentioned earlier about how much a copy of Windoze costs alongside VPC, vs. just buying a store shelf copy. They might see an opportunity to sell more legit copies of Windoze bundled with VPC as opposed to the many that will be bootlegged with other virtualization options.

I guess a lot of that has to do with what they've seen at the MBU as far as Leopard abilities.

[Craigy]

I don't even have an Intel Mac, yet I'm tempted to pre-order to lock in the $39 price for when I do get a MB this summer. What do you guys think?

Definitely, I am extremely impressed with Parallels. We run a medium sized web development business and use Parallels on several Intel Macs for SQL Server and .Net development. Runs great - no real issues - very fast. If it had the shared drives / networking of VPC it would be perfect.

Every release seems to get better

[iCaffeine]

I purchased Parallels just to run Office 2003.

[Coyote2006]

I purchased Parallels just to run Office 2003.

Even Office 2007 Beta 2 runs acceptable fast, means as fast a Office 2004 on MacOSX ;)

I'm already using parallels in my daily pro business. Grafics on MacOSX and Dreamweaver on WinXP. The fast switching between the OS rocks and the speed is great.

Only drive access (I might have to change to a 7200 disc) and grafics could be faster.

But no big bugs yet and everything runs stable. A great software, for an even better price...

:)

[Multimedia]

Even Office 2007 Beta 2 runs acceptable fast, means as fast a Office 2004 on MacOSX ;)

I'm already using parallels in my daily pro business. Grafics on MacOSX and Dreamweaver on WinXP. The fast switching between the OS rocks and the speed is great.

Only drive access (I might have to change to a 7200 disc) and grafics could be faster.

But no big bugs yet and everything runs stable. A great software, for an even better price...

:)That's great. On what model with how much RAM installed? :rolleyes: No frame of reference in your post. Thanks.

[Coyote2006]

That's great. On what model with how much RAM installed? :rolleyes: No frame of reference in your post. Thanks.

MacBookPro 2.16 GHz, 2GB RAM, X1600/256MB

;)

[kresh]

Now that's it's offically released. It kinda settles into the brain that it's really real :)

[Rocketman]

Someone send me an email when any one of these virtualization/guest OS programs can run hardware graphics acceleration. Then, and only then, does it become a better solution than bootcamp for those who have a need for Windoze.


Get a life :)

[sushi]

That's great. On what model with how much RAM installed? :rolleyes: No frame of reference in your post. Thanks.
I am running Parallels on an iMac Core Duo 17 inch with 512MB RAM.

Under Windows XP, Office 2003 runs good.

Yes, i am sure that if I had more RAM it would be better. ;)