Parallels Desktop 7 for Mac Allows You to Run Windows and Even Another Copy of Lion

[WANGOOROO]

Originally Posted by foidulus

Depends on your definition of "better"

VMWare is updated less often which means that it doesnt always have some of the cutting edge features(for instance you still cannot virtualize Lion on it yet), but at least in my experience it is significantly more stable and performs better to boot. However since I do not virtualize Windows, I virtualize Leopard Server and Linux, and dont do any graphics stuff on either platform YMMV.

Actually OS X Lion runs great as a guest in VMware Fusion. There are instructions easily found on the 'net which explain how to install it.

The process is fairly straightforward. Once you have built a customized Lion Installer image it is very easy to set up Fusion VMs to run Lion.

[kirreip]

Originally Posted by DisMyMac

Does this allow Blu-ray playback?

You want bluray playback? Try this:

http://www.macblurayplayer.com/


It works on my MacPro...

[Mr. Retrofire]

Originally Posted by mudman2

Using the VM Ware beta is kinda slow but on the previous beta it was to , the production was fast.

Just disable the debug mode in the preferences and quit, then open VMware Fusion v4.0 beta again. The beta is pretty fast (Windows XP and Windows 7) on my development machine (Early-2011 MBP, 2.2 GHz i7 Quad, 8 GB RAM). However, it does not support the latest Windows 8 beta (Build 7989). Virtual Box v4.1.2 supports it without problems. Did not test Parallels v7 with this Windows 8 beta.

Originally Posted by mudman2

VMware all the way, now I just need a VMware Desktop that will run Lion at work under Windows 7 so I can macify my work machine

Google is your friend.

[JPark]

Originally Posted by Boston007

Parallels is GARBAGE

Use VirtualBox or VMWare and you won't look back

I started on Parallels 3, then switched to VMWare, then switched back for Parallels 6. VMWare's 3D support is nearly non-existent. I use my VM for work and have to do the occasional CAD modeling. Parallels allows me to do it while VMWare was a joke (roughly 2fps).

[iCrizzo]

Virtual Box is $79.99 cheaper!

[SpinThis!]

Originally Posted by Spectrum

When will Apple acknowledge there are users out there that require Rosetta for some old apps?

Good luck with that. Apple has been transitioning since 2005 and Rosetta was a migration technology. Apple has to draw the line in the sand for support somewhere and they did with Lion.

Snow Leopard runs just fine so why change it? Lion is pretty much an eye-candy release anyway. Instead of writing Apple, you should be looking for alternatives to your old apps. That's probably not what you want to hear but it's better than the alternative: getting blindsided when you want to eventually upgrade to new hardware and your old software will no longer work.

[LagunaSol]

I alternate between Parallels and Fusion depending on which current version is faster (Parallels is the winner for now), but being on the Parallels upgrade path does make you feel like you're financially supporting a crack habit.

[KPOM]

Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire

If you use VMware, then install the darwin VMware Tools within the SL VM, and reboot the VM. The installation is a menu option. Then open the "Display" preferences within the SL VM.

I'm using Parallels Desktop.

[brettgo1]

It's just like the movie Inception!

[ichaddy]

Testing Lion.

I have installed and run Parallels 7 on Snow Leopard. Works wonderfully quick. My question is;

If I buy and download Lion from the Mac Store can I install and run it on this (Snow Leopard installed) Parallels?

[waitsui]

Why on earth do I need to run 2 additional copies of Lion on a single machine

[jmbill]

Unfortunately Parallels have lost me as a customer. I started with PD3 and found that my Mac would Kernel Panic if PD3 and EyeTV was open at the same time (which was often the case). Got told that for the fix, I would have to pay and update to PD4 which I did.

PD4 ran OK, but I could never get the Parallels tools to install, which made things very tedious. I could not copy and paste between Mac and Windows and could only get the mouse cursor to work if I Option + Cmd'ed the PD4 window each time. Again I got told that this was a known issue relating to my Mac model, and the bug fix was only available through PD5.

I got PD5 via the MacUpdate Promo bundle. But for whatever reason I found this version very sluggish. Again Parallels admitted there were problems but could not say when it would be fixed. Just kept getting canned responses, words to the effect "our engineers are aware of this issue and are working towards a fix".

So I changed to VirtualBox instead at that point, at the start of this year. Have found VirtualBox to be a brilliant solution. It starts and saves Windows 7 virtual machines in under 10 seconds and the performance and stability is simply outstanding. I've never once had VirtualBox crash on me and it survived the transition to Lion without requiring any updates. Like others have commented, if VirtualBox was paid software, I'd happily spend the money on it. The fact that it is free software is brilliant and I have no intentions of going back to Parallels ever again. Just my 2 pence worth.

[luckysob]

Everytime I apply a Parallels upgrade (even to say v6.1 from v6.0), I always need to reinstall "Parallel Tools", which usually takes a few hours of me cursing, because I forgot what I did the last time to fix it, and support is not supportive.

Other than that, I think Parallels is a good application to host my old Win XP machine so that I can run Quicken. (That is all I keep Parallels and Win around for.)

[maestrokev]

Originally Posted by LagunaSol

I alternate between Parallels and Fusion depending on which current version is faster (Parallels is the winner for now), but being on the Parallels upgrade path does make you feel like you're financially supporting a crack habit.

Yeah, I own both and prefer Fusion. Even though at times Parallels has versions that are faster, Fusion rarely crashes my VM while it is a common occurrence Parallels. Don't even get me started about their upgrade pricing for what should really be a bug fix.

[JRG1392]

The article says Parallels 7 is available today as an upgrade. Does that mean that I can just go ahead and buy Parallels 6 and upgrade? And if so can I just buy Parallels 6, not actually install it, and go straight to parallels 7 or does it upgrade within the program? Thanks.

[finkmacunix]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

I find Parallels to be WAY better than VMware at running Windows… Vmware does have more better support for exotic OS's, but it has zero 3D acceleration fir non-Windows OSs… I ran Windows 7 on Vmware, and then converted the virtual machine when I realized that Parallels had better 3D acceleration… Eg, desmume got a huge increase in speed… VirtualBox? That thing has a horrible UI… I own both Software packages…

[heisetax]

Originally Posted by GekkePrutser

This was changed in July. The client is allowed to be virtualized now too. It's even mentioned in this article.

The article about the change

----------



This is why I'm always sticking to VMWare. If I make any VMs on other systems (or even have some from work) they are always VMWare. If parallels made it possible to directly open VMWare-created VMs without having to convert them first, I'd consider it.

Having said that, this virtualization of Lion is a great thing and I hope VMWare will offer this soon too. They've always been a bit behind parallels in terms of features and performance but this is really a major feature they should catch up with soon.

This only says that we can legally run up to 2 more copies of Lion on the same computer. It says nothing of changing the older Mac OSes. One idea was to run Leopard or Snow Leopard under virtualization under Parallels or VMWare. But it appears to not have been changed. We appear to still need the Server version of the OS. All of this would allow those of us that need to run the older PPC only programs using Rosetta while still running Lion. This could make a lot of people that need Rosetta running to allow use of their many mission critical programs be able to run Lion & still use their Rosetta required programs.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Originally Posted by waitsui

Why on earth do I need to run 2 additional copies of Lion on a single machine

Developers need the ability to snapshot environments for testing. Its been done in the PC world for years and now FINALLY officially can be done on OSX. Its going to make development and software packaging so much easier now!

[nylonsteel]

re original article

looks good...on paper

[LeandrodaFL]

What would be brilliant is a way to install Windows 7, without me giving money to Microsoft. I need that OS, but I dont think Microsfot diserves to get more OS share or money from OS sales.

Its just a principle thing, I do like Microsfot hardware products, I have 3 mouses from them.

[basher]

Originally Posted by iCrizzo

Virtual Box is $79.99 cheaper!

Be careful. You might get what you pay for.

[Phil Lee]

Originally Posted by LeandrodaFL

What would be brilliant is a way to install Windows 7, without me giving money to Microsoft. I need that OS, but I dont think Microsfot diserves to get more OS share or money from OS sales.

Its just a principle thing, I do like Microsfot hardware products, I have 3 mouses from them.

How do you propose Microsoft develop Windows without charging for it?

[ksgant]

How does Windows on Demand work? You just buy a version that works in Parallels or do you get a copy that you can use in a bootstrap option?

[path2k7]

Originally Posted by CTU Kyoto

Using Parallels 6 (trial version) to virtualise Windows 7 on a MacBook Air running 10.7 caused constant kernel panics for me. Can anyone report on whether this issue is fixed in 7?

Never had that problem with Parallels 6. Must be your system.

[VulchR]

Originally Posted by Marx55

The problem with Parallels Desktop is that it fails when used to control external machines via USB....

Horse hockey. I am not sure what configuration you used, but I have never had a problem using Parallels & Win98/Win7 running a range of USB devices - hard disks, printers, scanners, camera, WiFi dongles, and even a fairly esoteric laboratory data acquisition device. No doubt Marx55 did encounter problems, but that's hardly universal.

I suspect a lot of the instability that people report about Parallels is due to problems with Windows itself and/or Windows programs. Perhaps not all of it, but I have been using Parallels since version 4 and I have had fewer problems with Parallels Windows VM's than I have had with native Windows systems....