Apple Retail Stores to Encourage Mac Business Usage with Parallels Desktop, Parallels 9 Pre-Orders Begin Popping Up

[MacRumors]

Apple is aiming to encourage Mac usage to its business consumers by displaying iMacs running a copy of Microsoft's Windows 8 operating system within Parallels Desktop 8 for Mac in the business section of its stores, according to a report from 9to5Mac. Apple Retail Stores will also train business specialists on using Parallels and Windows software as part of the initiative.

Apple currently includes a section on its website with information on how to run Windows and its associated software on a Mac through Boot Camp, a multi boot utility introduced in Mac OS X Leopard. However, virtualization software such as Parallels Desktop and VMWare Fusion have been alternative choices for users who want to run Windows on a Mac due to the non-requirement of a reboot and the ability to run Windows simultaneously within an active session of OS X.

The latest version of Parallels, Parallels Desktop 8, was released last August, adding new features such as full support for Windows 8 and automatic visual optimization for the software when running on Retina displays.

The standard edition of the software retails for $79.99 on Apple's Online Store, though pre-orders have begun popping up for the next generation of the software, Parallels Desktop 9. Currently, Amazon Germany and Apple Authorized Reseller MacMall have the software for $74.99 with an expected release date of September 5.

Article Link: Apple Retail Stores to Encourage Mac Business Usage with Parallels Desktop, Parallels 9 Pre-Orders Begin Popping Up

 

[clayj]

So why Parallels and not VMware Fusion? VMware is the leader in third-party virtualization technology -- we use their server-based stuff for clients on a regular basis. All Parallels does is desktop-based virtualization, if I remember correctly.

PS: I've had clients ask me whether they should do this so that they can use Macs at work. I've told them the downsides of virtualization (it's high-maintenance and more prone to crashing than a non-virtualized environment) and what's always ended the discussion is the question, "Why do you want a Mac at work beyond trying to impress people?"

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Apple, don't bother trying to push Windows 8 for business use.

 

[lincolntran]

I'd prefer VMWare as well.

 

['Arry]

Apple Retail Stores to Encourage Mac Business Usage with Parallels Desktop, Parallels 9 Pre-Orders Begin Popping Up

Here's an idea: how about encouraging Mac business use by making more awesome Mac business software?

 

[1member1]

So why Parallels and not VMware Fusion? VMware is the leader in third-party virtualization technology -- we use their server-based stuff for clients on a regular basis. All Parallels does is desktop-based virtualization, if I remember correctly.
"

So what.. microsoft is the leader of desktop operating systems and we use their servers all the time.
I have nothing against vmware but from the bechmarks i've seen Parallels is better in most cases and more popular at the moment in my opinion.

 

[lincolntran]

"Why do you want a Mac at work beyond trying to impress people?"

So the IT people don't have total control of how we should use our laptop.

 

[ssanders79]

A few months back I was trying to pick between Parallels and VMWare. Apple Retail employee I spoke with said they were using VMWare to run Windows only software from the cell phone companies in the back... This was a surprise considering Parallels was on the wall to purchase and VMWare was not...

Based on the fact this is what they were using to run windows only apps I choose VMWare, and have been quite satisfied.

I wonder if this is more of a business arrangement rather than a full on endorsement of the Parallels product.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

So why Parallels and not VMware Fusion? VMware is the leader in third-party virtualization technology -- we use their server-based stuff for clients on a regular basis. All Parallels does is desktop-based virtualization, if I remember correctly.

PS: I've had clients ask me whether they should do this so that they can use Macs at work. I've told them the downsides of virtualization (it's high-maintenance and more prone to crashing than a non-virtualized environment) and what's always ended the discussion is the question, "Why do you want a Mac at work beyond trying to impress people?"

What do you mean by: "(it's high-maintenance and more prone to crashing than a non-virtualized environment)" ???
On the contrary, a virtual environment ON GOOD HARDWARE provides better reliability and faster disaster recovery than a non-virtual environment.

So, if what you mentioned has been based on your experience, you may be doing it wrong.

Otherwise, why go virtual???

Also, at this point, Apple is trying to push the Mac with Parallels at the Desktop level, not at the server level; at least this doesn't seem to be the case for now.
And it would be for apps that must run under Windows.

A lot of important business apps are now being developed for the Mac, so this Windows solution would be as a transition for those businesses who want reliable Mac hardware with Windows compatibility while required.

At the server level, every business has different needs: some must use Windows, other can do Linux or OS X. Others must use AIX, etc.
So at the server level there's no "rule that applies all".

 

[MLMcMillion]

Aren't Apple's business customers already using Macs? Otherwise they wouldn't be Apple business customers.

I'm not sure what that first sentence is trying to get across.

 

[Diesel79]

I use virtualbox on my mac, windows and linux machines, I have no complaints.

 

[ugahairydawgs]

Here's an idea: how about encouraging Mac business use by making more awesome Mac business software?

A larger user base will entice more software development on the platform. You push virtualization for legacy software to add those users in the short term with the aim of having devs make better business platforms in the future that are either cross platform or Mac native.

As far as why use a Mac over a Windows computer? Like most things....personal preference is generally a good starting point.

 

[3282868]

Any time I see a Mac running Widows, the world becomes a darker place.

 

[hh83917]

I was a VMware user all the way up to VMware 5. I tried Parallels up to version 3 then gave up due to it's resource hogging, which makes your laptop's fan ran like an airplane taking off, and very unstable. VMware was always running cool and stable.

But Parallels 8 was improved a lot and it's been very speedy, cool, and stable so far. VMware 5 is simply minor improvement over VMware 4, where Parallels fixes resource hogging issues, saves battery life with low power mode, startup virtual PC faster, retina display support on Macbook pro is IMO better than VMware 5, runs cool like VMware now, and it's graphics driver is much more advance where I can play Simcity 5 without any lag (even though I felt the game was not very good now I've played it).

So I'm giving Parallels another chance, deleting VMware 5 until VMware come out with some innovative improvement over its current versions. Parallels to me seems like the underdog working hard to fight against VMware, and I have to say, so far they are doing very well with all the features and improvements.

 

[clayj]

What do you mean by: "(it's high-maintenance and more prone to crashing than a non-virtualized environment)" ???
On the contrary, a virtual environment ON GOOD HARDWARE provides better reliability and faster disaster recovery than a non-virtual environment.

So, if what you mentioned has been based on your experience, you may be doing it wrong.

Otherwise, why go virtual???

For our clients, running VMware ESX on HP and other PC servers is VERY stable.

But at home, I run VMware Fusion 5.x on a Mac Pro and I *constantly* have issues -- not because of VMware, but because of unresolved issues with Mac OS X which cause the system to become unresponsive, requiring a hard power-down of the Mac and then power-on and restart of all of the VMware machines. I continue to run with this arrangement because, as Apple is now encouraging, I do want to use Windows 7 and Windows SBS 2011 on my home computer.

So whether you think the Mac is not good hardware or Mac OS X is not a stable OS (as VMware ESX most definitely IS), encouraging normal users to use virtualization technology on desktop machines for vital business functionality is not something I would recommend.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

We used VMWare until v5 when Parallels started kicking its butt up and down every feature list and performance test.

VMWare makes some great products, and is a great company, but for running Windows on a Mac, Parallels wins hands down.

The differences may not be a big deal for resource-light programs, but we use Autodesk Inventor, Solidworks, Surfcam and Architectural Desktop, and the performance is drastic.

Win8 was not an upgrade though. Went back to our Win7 images instead. At its best, windows stays out of sight & out of mind, in transparency mode, like an invisible layer that allows our cad programs to run as if they're running in OSX. We restore our windows images from Time Machine over the weekend. Brand new windows installs every monday morning keeps windows working.

MS should come out with half as many Windows OS's as they do. Just skip the even number ones and put the resources into sprucing up the solid odd numbered ones.

 

[laurihoefs]

MS should come out with half as many Windows OS's as they do. Just skip the even number ones and put the resources into sprucing up the solid odd numbered ones.

Huh, where did Windows NT 3.X, NT 4 and 2000 go? Or 95 SR1 and 98 SE for that matter? Or XP x64? Or Server 2000, 2003, 2008 and 2012?

That claim about "half as many" releases very conveniently ignores at least eight major and two minor releases..

 

[scottishwildcat]

and what's always ended the discussion is the question, "Why do you want a Mac at work beyond trying to impress people?"

Numerous reasons. From the IT department's perspective, one of them should be that they don't generally need replacing nearly as often as your average standard-issue Dell laptop. And despite recent scares, OS X still don't succumb to viruses etc. *nearly* as often as Windows.

Other than that, the answer is pretty much the same as "why would you want a Mac at home?": it depends what you want to do with it. In general, they're easier to set up and maintain, they have a longer useful lifespan without doing any significant hardware upgrades, and I'm just more productive with Macs than I am with Windows. And I've been working and tinkering with various Unix machines for 25 years, so having a certified Unix on my laptop is a definite bonus.

 

[hvfsl]

So why Parallels and not VMware Fusion? VMware is the leader in third-party virtualization technology -- we use their server-based stuff for clients on a regular basis. All Parallels does is desktop-based virtualization, if I remember correctly.

PS: I've had clients ask me whether they should do this so that they can use Macs at work. I've told them the downsides of virtualization (it's high-maintenance and more prone to crashing than a non-virtualized environment) and what's always ended the discussion is the question, "Why do you want a Mac at work beyond trying to impress people?"

Parallels do a lot of business/server stuff as well. A good portion of the websites around the world run on Plesk which is a Parallels product. Although their server virtualisation products aren't as mature as VMware.

We are finding more and more companies these days want nice looking computers on the reception/front of house which basically means an iMac. But they have the odd bit of proprietary software which is Windows only, so Parallels/vmware is a good solution for them.

 

[mindstream]

Just skip the even number ones and put the resources into sprucing up the solid odd numbered ones.

Agreed, save the even numbers for Star Trek movies.

 

[swm]

been using mac at home and at work since tiger and the bathroom coloured flat intel imac came out. never had any issues at getting stuff done while living without windows. as i use a very limited amount of programs, life was easy.

i've been always wondering why folks run word/excel/powerpoint on mac, when there is pages/numbers/keynote. why pay helluva lot money for those ****** outdated apps from microsoft, when i can have them almost free.

yes, there are a lot of applications that are only available for windows, and yes
it's not good at all. but the problem is not really the lack of good apps for mac, rather than the ignorant IT folks educated imprisoned in microsoft world. and they are really afraid, that if anything changes, they won't be that important anymore. cuz right now they are the total rulers of time and space, as they sit at the exchange management console.
you all could run to them screaming, hey, buddy, there is a whole other world out there...

it's kind of strange, that i can get stuff done for a mid sized business by purchasing the server edition of OS-X for nifty $20: collaboration, backup, messaging, emails, web service, centralized user management. whatever.
in the windows worlds i'd have to shovel out thousands of dollars to get the same things done by puchasing windows 2xxx server, exchange server, licenses for exchange, for active directory.

it's actually so cheap, that some guys don't even bother to do the same with some open source unixes for free.

even on the client devices, i've work with say 50 colleagues, and most of them uses PCs running windows. they are always upset, because their shiny new core i5 laptops with 8 gigs of ram is booting for minutes, antivirus software eats away half of the cpu, and as they resize one window by dragging it's edge, the magic hourglass pops up, and they have to wait 4-6 seconds. on a newly installed lenovo laptop.

the windows folder gets thicker and thicker, boot time increases as days go by. and this is not purely the fault of the operating system, it's the applications, the drivers. everybody creates ****** drivers that have some unimportant resident part, which constantly buggs the user: intel graphics assistant, nvidia helper, realtek audio 3d control panel. is it really necessary for an audio driver to be 160MB? or those HP printer drivers, come on, the recent all in ones doesn't even go under half GIG!

there is no consistent development environment for windows. there are some, yeah, but there's no standard like it is with xcode. you create an app with 3 windows, and the poor user has to download dotnet4x-gamma-delta-xi, which is just 250megs, but upon installing it unpacks itself to the ROOT directory(!) then it starts setup (dot.msi) which then unpacks the real .cab .dat files, and then it actually installs itself to somewhere deep in the windows directory, and of course a copy to some hidden place.
and in most cases on a thin SSD 2-3 Gig free space is not enough to finish this magical operation.

so without any kind of good reason, i'd never put something like this on any of my machines, it does not matter which sw is used, parallels or vmware. if i ever decide to ruin my gear, then it should be virtualbox, because that way i don't have to pay for my suffering.

 

[cmwade77]

I am the it manager at my work and I have been switching us to macs with parallels for some time now. Why? Because we have found them more stable, faster and easier to recover from problems.

Vmware tends to be buggy and consume too many resources.

 

[MsQueen]

Never used Parallels 8 Key

What happens if you have a less than 5 month-old never used Parallels 8 Key? Do you get a free upgrade or something?

 

[H2SO4]

Why do you want a Mac at work beyond trying to impress people?"

I hate questions like that. For the same reason I drive a particular car to work or wear a particular shirt. They all do the same job but that's what I like, is that not good enough?

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Heh. Yeah. I figured they were focusing on the consumer OS line. NT not being a part of that.

but yeah, 95 was pretty amazing when it hit. & I was pretty sure 98 was garbage. & I happily used NT4 & 2K for quite a while. But I'll definintely hand it to them with the XP/Vista/7/8 progression.

But I could say the same for the last run of releases of OS X too. Leopard was shaky. Snow Leopard was perfect. Lion was a dog. Mt Lion is significantly better. Can't say I have high hopes for Sea Lion.