Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Paralells 7 incompatible with Mavericks?! Why?

P

pscl

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 3, 2013
397
61
hi

im so annoyed about parallels. i bought the 7.0 Version about 1 year ago for around 40€. now there is mavericks and i get an email from parallels staff, that mavericks is not supported. i should buy the newest version. another 40€.

WTF?

are they serious? i mean... im sure there is nothing happening with mavericks update that parallels cant fix with a simple UPDATE. im really annoyed.

how are u feeling about those update-politics?
 
This happened to me with v2 or v3 (was quite a while ago!) on an OS upgrade. That's when I switched to VMWare Fusion.

There's no reason for older versions to suddenly stop working, in my opinion. It's just a way for Parallels to force upgrades and make more money.

I'm on Fusion 5 (one version behind the latest) and it's working fine in Mavericks.
 
i just made my complaint to parallels... i hope i get an answer.

thats what you get if you legally buy software. a complete rip-off.

----------
mark.s said:
I'm on Fusion 5 (one version behind the latest) and it's working fine in Mavericks.
Click to expand...

is it possible to boot my bootcamp installation with VM ware while im in macos?
 
This happened to me on Fusion with Mountain Lion. I was furious that with no warning I could no longer launch a VM that I depended on, and that the only way forward was to pay full price (no upgrade available). So I switched to Parallels.
 
all firms complain about software pirating... and those politics may be the reason why many people do the illegal thing. no wonder.
 
Is it somewhat annoying to not be supported 2 years after release? Yeah....kinda.

But in a sense...I get it too. Parallels makes their money off of software sales. If they made a version and constantly updated it to make it compatible with the latest version of the OS it would never compel anyone to upgrade.

At the end of the day, though, nobody forced us to upgrade to Mavericks. If any of us using Parallels 7 had stayed on SL, Lion, or ML then all would still be well. But I wanted to upgrade to Mavericks, so I had to pay the upgrade fee to get Parallels 9. It's a good product, so I don't mind supporting the company.
 
ugahairydawgs said:
Is it somewhat annoying to not be supported 2 years after release? Yeah....kinda.

But in a sense...I get it too. Parallels makes their money off of software sales. If they made a version and constantly updated it to make it compatible with the latest version of the OS it would never compel anyone to upgrade.

At the end of the day, though, nobody forced us to upgrade to Mavericks. If any of us using Parallels 7 had stayed on SL, Lion, or ML then all would still be well. But I wanted to upgrade to Mavericks, so I had to pay the upgrade fee to get Parallels 9. It's a good product, so I don't mind supporting the company.
Click to expand...


i get ur point. but i think its a question of the price. i payed 80€ in 2011, now, again 40€ for an upgrade? Come on. This is too much.
 
I've said it in another thread. Parallels 7 is now 3 versions old (8 and now 9 have come out since). At some point the developer needs to make a decision to not support an older version and dedicate resources to other projects. You DO realize that supporting a new OS isn't magic, right? The developer needs to dedicate resources to review the entire application (sometimes line by line for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or millions of lines of code) for incompatibilities.

Many people here say they received an email from the developer advising them that the version they're running would not be compatible with Mavericks, did you not get that email last month, before you updated?

Microsoft is doing the same thing with XP, it was a good OS but there are now better versions (Windows 7 is much faster on the same hardware, I see it every day), so they're no longer dedicating resources to providing security updates for it, not to mention that it's 10 years old.
 
I weighed it up compared to how much I use Windows and I ended up deleting parallels, just because I don't want their upgrade-policy esp. with Apples one-year upgrade cycle.

so now I freed up plenty of space by removing XP and Windows 7 from my mac. :D
 
I continued paying for upgrades in the early days to Parallels for the features that each new version brought or promised. With both of the Lion releases I have upgrade because they pushed updates for it to work but I lost performance. I have considered VMWare for sure.
 
I used to be a software developer, and while I agree that new OSes aren't supported by magic, I think it's rarely the case that one needs to review the entire application line-by-line for incompatibilities. Sure, it takes some resources, but isn't that quite an exaggeration when trying to convey the amount of work it is to support another release of the OS?

So anyway, I'm more of the mind of the OPer -- so when my bought Parallels 6 wouldn't work for Mountain Lion, I decided to switch over to Oracle's VirtualBox. It was a bit of a pain to re-build my VM, but now even if VirtualBox stops working with the next OS release, at least I haven't paid big bucks for it and I'll feel better. :)

So far it's been great for what I need, too, on 10.8.5. Not sure of Mavericks support, though I bet it works...
 
I would suggest that the trouble is with Apple too. Yearly updates of the OS that end up breaking a lot of software (Parallels compatibility being one of them) is too much, I think.

I don't know about you guys but I miss the days when an OS lasted a good few years.

I would suggest that we (those of us who moved from Windows) gave up having to constantly patch DLL files and deal with stability issues that way, to now having to deal with broken software due to OS updates every year. Either way it takes much valued time away from work and leisure (and being part of MacRumors ;)) and forces it to be used with ensuring/reestablishing software compatibilities.

And if you don't update OS, you fall behind with software availability (e.g. the new iLife and iWork, iCould compatibility, iBooks, etc.).

Come on Apple, stop causing so much fragmentation on your desktop side.
 
brilliantthings said:
That sounds promising. Any complaints? What does Parallels have that VirtualBox doesnt?
Click to expand...

I can't speak to the differences as I've never used Parallels. No complaints but I only use it for one application once or twice a month, but it does the job.
 
hallux said:
I can't speak to the differences as I've never used Parallels. No complaints but I only use it for one application once or twice a month, but it does the job.
Click to expand...

Just got rid of Parallels and installed Virtualbox. It's pretty slow so far. But Windows is still ironing itself out. Difficult to know how much of my 4gb ram to allocate. I'm trying 1.5gb.
 
pscl said:
hi

im so annoyed about parallels. i bought the 7.0 Version about 1 year ago for around 40€. now there is mavericks and i get an email from parallels staff, that mavericks is not supported. i should buy the newest version. another 40€.

WTF?

are they serious? i mean... im sure there is nothing happening with mavericks update that parallels cant fix with a simple UPDATE. im really annoyed.

how are u feeling about those update-politics?
Click to expand...

Parallels has ALWAYS done this - a totally unjustified move every time a new OS is released...they just look for easy money and nothing else. VirtualBox is the way if you want to run Winblows.
 
Parallels 7 works on Mountain Lion even though Parallels 8 came out for it.
Parallels 8 works on Mavericks even though Parallels 9 came out for it.

Each version of Parallels works on the current OS and the next one. They even fixed Parallels 8 so it would run on the Developers Preview as well as the release version of Mavericks, which they didn't have to do since they released Parallels 9.

As far as I'm concerned they are doing a good job with support these days. Now I've used it since it first came out, and I was very critical of support in the early versions but I've been very happy the past 4 or 5 versions.
 
for any of you who care:

here is the answer to my complaint from Parallels Staff:

"Parallels invests and focuses our finite resources on creating superior software to support Windows, Mac, Google, Linux and other communities -- software with the best compatibility and deepest integration with the latest and greatest from those hardware and OS providers. This development and innovation comes with costs, and it’s not feasible to offer free upgrades from older versions of Parallels Desktop software."


Well i guess this is the standard answer.
 
One other thing to remember is that virtualization software relies on the host OS as well - you make changes to the way the host OS works or add in features to way things work, it can affect the way a program has to work. The really good programs like VMware or Parallels have to do a lot of work since they really optimize their performance and taylor it to the host OS for user convenience.

Virtualization tends to be one of those things that can be OS specific and when things change, things can easily break - especially when we are talking two major releases old
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back