If Parallels 6 arrives no later than 4 weeks after you purchased Parallels 5, yes! Otherwise, no.Guys, I bought Parallels 5 two weeks ago... yikes!
Do you think I can get a free upgrade to Parallels 6?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Parallels 6 Prematurely Appears on Store Shelves
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I too gave up on Parallels some time back. I *really* resent being stiffed for puny upgrades and refuse to pay rental for software when I should own it.
I think that since I moved to VMWare 3 years ago, there's been at least 3 chargeable upgrades with the fourth imminent. Assuming $40/each, that's $160.
Now compare that with VMWare. One upgrade earlier this year for Snow Leopard at $40 (I think it was).
What about service... The one reason I moved may sound trivial to most people here, but it's a big one for me... F11 & F12 support. This is really important if you develop in Visual Studio, not to mention IE full screen, etc. Anyway, Parallels sat on this for 6 months with nothing forthcoming; their support was abysmal, so I moved over to VMWare.
I'm delighted with VMWare, and in particular the fact that I can create a Windows VM on my Mac and transfer it over to a Windows machine to use the *free* VMWare Player and run it. The compatibility is first class.
To summarise: Parallels is inferior (see other posts regarding the way it hacks the Mac kernel), is vastly more expensive, and doesn't have windows <--> Mac compatibility. No brainer.
It's like Parallels' takes their business strategy straight from Adobe - and there's a special place in hell waiting for them.
I think that since I moved to VMWare 3 years ago, there's been at least 3 chargeable upgrades with the fourth imminent. Assuming $40/each, that's $160.
Now compare that with VMWare. One upgrade earlier this year for Snow Leopard at $40 (I think it was).
What about service... The one reason I moved may sound trivial to most people here, but it's a big one for me... F11 & F12 support. This is really important if you develop in Visual Studio, not to mention IE full screen, etc. Anyway, Parallels sat on this for 6 months with nothing forthcoming; their support was abysmal, so I moved over to VMWare.
I'm delighted with VMWare, and in particular the fact that I can create a Windows VM on my Mac and transfer it over to a Windows machine to use the *free* VMWare Player and run it. The compatibility is first class.
To summarise: Parallels is inferior (see other posts regarding the way it hacks the Mac kernel), is vastly more expensive, and doesn't have windows <--> Mac compatibility. No brainer.
It's like Parallels' takes their business strategy straight from Adobe - and there's a special place in hell waiting for them.
I have some questions regarding your posts:
What do you mean, F11 and F12 support? Those keys are normally tied to Mac OS X shortcuts, yes... but if you want to use those keys for their Windows functions you can disable this behavior very easily, in the preferences for Parallels.
How can you tell that Parallels hacks the Mac kernel? Mac OS X shouldn't permit low-level kernel modifications other than kernel extensions (which Parallels does use).
Emulation could use as much power as you can throw at it - All I can say is Parallels runs pretty smoothy on the correct hardware. Also you never mentioned what App you were trying to run. That said the 2008 13" Macbook was probably 2.1 Ghz and for running XP it should be pretty good. Also having enough ram is important as well.
It's not emulation, it's virtualization, but you're right - the more hardware power the better.
nice! P5 was an inmense improvement and was better at everything than VMware (before P5, VMware was the better one), and if P6 is even faster then even better!!
EDIT: here is what they wrote according to a comment on 9to5:
Parallels 6 for Mac is yet to be announced but has already hit some retailers in the U.S, and weve got our hands on the features:
-Supports Aero, Vista, and Windows 7
-Acronis true image support
-2x faster graphics support, faster file access, faster network connections, faster Windows startups, faster access to files on a network, and its faster than VMWare Fusion.
-Easy Windows Backups
-Better, Faster, Stronger gaming performance
-Windows and Mac security software included
-Easy migration to virtual machines
-Parallels Transporter is now a built-in, integrated feature in Parallels 6 versus a separate, stand alone application in Parallels 5.
-Support for 5.1 surround sound on Windows
-Spotlight, Spaces, and Expose support
-90 day money back guarantee (may depend on retail location?)
-Parallels 6 will cost $79.99, which was the old price of Parallels 5.
Heres the big one:
-Parallels iPad app. As you may know, Parallels currently offers an iPhone/iPod touch app to access files and such remotely, but according to the back of the box, it works with the yet to be released iPad app as well. It also appears (we may get this one wrong) that the iPhone/iPod touch app will be enhanced for greater file access. Well have to see and were still wondering when this things getting announced for real.
Requirements: 1GB of Ram (2 GB recommended), 450 MB hard drive minimum, 10.5 Leopard or 10.6 Snow Leopard, an internet connection, and of course a Windows OS disc.
This news post is sad. All of this is in and has been done for Parallels 5 for Mac. Does no one read the current site?
I stopped purchasing Parallels a few versions ago because of their horrid customer service. I really doubt I will ever give them another dime.
Because the current version is faster than the current version of Fusion (my experience - I own both). Fusion has always seemed to get slower with use for me. I'd get to the point where doing anything on either OS was a click-and-wait affair. Excruciating. Parallels 5 has been better for me in that regard, though I'd happily jump back to Fusion if they come out with a Parallels-beating update.
Also, some Windows apps work in Parallels and not Fusion (and vice-versa). A friend of mine was trying to run a high-end CAD Windows program using Fusion. Would not work no matter what he tried. He was going to resort to Boot Camp but I suggested he try Parallels before confining himself to the Windows-only environment of Boot Camp. He tried Parallels and everything worked just fine.
So the best of these two apps is the one that best fits your own personal needs. I'm just glad there are options.
Pragmatism over Purity
I have to agree with LagunaSol. I've switched between Parallels and vmWare a few times in the past 6 years. Parallels just had a couple of crock releases but vmWare seems to slow down over time. I'm now running Windows 7 64 bit (which admittedly was a mistake) but Parallels 5 runs it far better than vmWare.
I take the point from an earlier post that vmWare is the better written app but that's kind of academic if Parallels runs better. Pragmatism over Purity!
I have to agree with LagunaSol. I've switched between Parallels and vmWare a few times in the past 6 years. Parallels just had a couple of crock releases but vmWare seems to slow down over time. I'm now running Windows 7 64 bit (which admittedly was a mistake) but Parallels 5 runs it far better than vmWare.
I take the point from an earlier post that vmWare is the better written app but that's kind of academic if Parallels runs better. Pragmatism over Purity!
2x faster graphics?! That would be pretty special! Depending on other bottlenecks it might actually be worthwhile for gaming. :O
I've done the VMware/Parallels switching back and forth thing too (using my Win7/64 Bootcamp partition in the VM) - Parallels does seem a lot faster from my usage too.
Looking forward to it here!
I've done the VMware/Parallels switching back and forth thing too (using my Win7/64 Bootcamp partition in the VM) - Parallels does seem a lot faster from my usage too.
Looking forward to it here!
There is an open source and commercial edition of Virtualbox. The package provided in Ubuntu is the OSE (open source edition) that does not support USB or VNC due to licensing issues. You can still install the non-OSE version of Virtualbox for Ubuntu here:
http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Linux_Downloads
why didnt he buy it?
Maybe he has discovered Sun/Oracle's "Virtual Box". Not a lot of reason to pay $80 for VM software when a good usable one like this is free.
There's never a case where a free version is going to be as robust and well-supported as a paid version, it just doesn't work that way. However, if someone wants to pay for it, let them. It's like a PC vs Mac debate, people get set int heir ways. For me, I used VM 2 years ago, and then Parallels 3. Parallels 3 was inferior. Then early this year I tried both current versions of VM (i believe 3), and Parallels (5), and to me Parallels works better. I think much of the performance will depend on how your computer is setup. Somehow the way Parallels interfaces with my SSD makes it load so much faster than VM loads on SSD...
However, take my opinions like a grain of salt, I'm not a windows power user. I don't game, I don't do any major processing or conversions in windows. I really base it on load time, reliability of install, ease of use, quality of their GUI, etc. With that said, that's how MOST Mac users use a virtual windows machine or they'd be better off just buying a PC.
I agree wholeheartedly. Though if iLife 11 showed up on a shelf at Frys, I'm sure we'd all be sayin "WTF" ... Steve-O has never released a new version of iLife or iWork without calling the media into a tiny room and making them drink his kool-aid while talking about it (literally, they serve kool-aid hah)
Works great for me
Parallels 5 works way better than 4 did. I have no trouble running XP on it and I have a Debian VM running quite swimmingly. Yes it was tricky to get it working but it works great. Honestly, aside from one or two specialty Windows apps, the only reason I use Windows is for goddamn Quickbooks Premiere Manufacturing edition. If Intuit would ever get their head out of their ass and build a fully feature-parity version of Quickbooks, I'd almost never run Windows. Come on, Intuit, stop screwing over your Mac users. Oh, and write an iPad version and not one that requires you to pay a monthly fee for a cloud-based solution.
Parallels 5 works way better than 4 did. I have no trouble running XP on it and I have a Debian VM running quite swimmingly. Yes it was tricky to get it working but it works great. Honestly, aside from one or two specialty Windows apps, the only reason I use Windows is for goddamn Quickbooks Premiere Manufacturing edition. If Intuit would ever get their head out of their ass and build a fully feature-parity version of Quickbooks, I'd almost never run Windows. Come on, Intuit, stop screwing over your Mac users. Oh, and write an iPad version and not one that requires you to pay a monthly fee for a cloud-based solution.
I seriously doubt that Apple put that up. Amazon frequently puts placeholders in their store for products that they anticipate but don't yet had. Anybody remember Aperture X which was up on Amazon months before Aperture 3 was actually announced?
I went with Parallels for the 3d support. I've run two virtual machines, Windows 7 and Windows XP, at the same time. It was because 3D Studio Max was stable in Windows 7 but flaky in XP, while UnrealEd was flaky on 7, but stable on XP. Parallels did an admirable job keeping both usable when switching back and forth between the two.
My one complaint with the company is their upgrade pricing and that they need to add information on what your version is to their database. I bought v4, upgraded to v5 when it came out for $40. It was a 'limited time offer'. After that limited time expired, the upgrade price dropped to $30! Even though I had already upgraded at $40, I got a weekly email soliciting me to upgrade for $30.
This time around I'll probably be slow to upgrade at the $40 price, just to see if they'll drop the upgrade price to $30. It wasn't like the $40 upgrade option ever went away.
My one complaint with the company is their upgrade pricing and that they need to add information on what your version is to their database. I bought v4, upgraded to v5 when it came out for $40. It was a 'limited time offer'. After that limited time expired, the upgrade price dropped to $30! Even though I had already upgraded at $40, I got a weekly email soliciting me to upgrade for $30.
This time around I'll probably be slow to upgrade at the $40 price, just to see if they'll drop the upgrade price to $30. It wasn't like the $40 upgrade option ever went away.
Totally - Its sort of scummy of them to do that .... also you will see many other sites offering Parallels - they are sort of like affiliate sellers. After a long time I finally made the plunge and Bought P5 and I got the same emails like registering made no difference. Lets just say if you wait you will always be able to find a better deal because you know the specials will happen and it will be bundled into some Mac Shareware bundle for $20 .... the spoils come to those who wait. Hey I'm happy a new faster version is coming out and I use it enough to really not think about the cost of the upgrade... but they are sort of scummy when it comes to the marketing they do - Look I'm a registered user and some bone head at Frys had a chance to actually purchase it before I can get it....