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 Desktop 10 with OS X Yosemite and iCloud Drive Support Launches for Existing Customers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LMAO - I thought it was just me. Whenever you want to launch anything, basically put in an acoustic guitar and have lots of colours and words flying around. Hipster marketing 101
+1 soooooooo overused by many companies now. Interesting to hear that it isn't just me that is getting tired of it as well.
----------
I did the same. It still surprises me a company as big as VMWare that specializes in virtualization is not leading in it though.
I hear in this thread that they patch it later quietly. I was Paralles 7 user during Mavericks update and they sent out email telling us it was no longer supported. That was a ripoff. I uninstall and block their marketing email. Convert my vm into virtualbox and a now very satisfied user.
Last edited:
I'll upgrade if it's really appreciably faster. I'm running Windows 8.1 on an older Mac mini (2.5GHz i5 w/ AMD Radeon graphics) with 16GB of RAM and an SSD. Not the most low-end specs for sure, but still a few years old.
Windows 8.1 on Parallels 9 is ok - disk IO is plenty fast, but bigger applications (PowerPoint 2013 and Outlook 2013 are two that come first to mind) are a bit sluggish.
If version 10 is truly faster, I'll spring for the upgrade. If not, I'll skip it for now...
Windows 8.1 on Parallels 9 is ok - disk IO is plenty fast, but bigger applications (PowerPoint 2013 and Outlook 2013 are two that come first to mind) are a bit sluggish.
If version 10 is truly faster, I'll spring for the upgrade. If not, I'll skip it for now...
Launching Parallels 8 under the latest Yosemite beta (it's been fine up to this one) gives an error regarding virtualization support not being enabled, so I can't launch any VMs. One of their support documents claims that can be fixed by uninstalling, repairing disk permissions, and reinstalling. I may give that a try - can't do much harm, after all.
Is VMware still offering any sidegrade pricing from Parallels? I've been fine with Parallels Desktop, but it hasn't felt quite as slick as I recall Fusion being, so if I do wind up paying for a new version, I'd be open to heading back thataway.
Is VMware still offering any sidegrade pricing from Parallels? I've been fine with Parallels Desktop, but it hasn't felt quite as slick as I recall Fusion being, so if I do wind up paying for a new version, I'd be open to heading back thataway.
In all fairness, Parallels 9 works fine on Yosemite (well, until the very latest developer preview anyway).
While I think $50/year is too high (especially considering $80/year for brand new user, and they can get pretty decent discount on top of it), Parallels deserves to be paid.
Having said that, I sense there are two types of Parallels user. Those that are fine upgrading when they feel like it. And those that wants to upgrade to the latest every year. For the later, Parallels should offer lower price annual subscription, say, $24/year.
It seems there is a misconception on this thread that an older version of parallels never works with the newest Apple OSX version. This is false. I've been using Parallels 8 with Mavericks w/out issue. Usually there are a few bugs to iron out from Parallels but they update it to work. It's the two-year old version that they do not update for the newest OSX.
Therefore this is more of a 2-year upgrade cycle than yearly. You do NOT have to spend $50 year. I upgrade every other year. $25/yr average is pretty good for software that does such a good job of running Win/Linux installs on OSX in a virtual machine.
Apple updates OSX EVERY year now. Would I love to get an upgrade from Parallels for cheaper or even free? Yes of course. But I do not expect them to keep updating their two year old product to work with a new version of OSX every year. They are a software company and need to put out software to make money. I personally do not think requiring an upgrade every 2-years (or after supporting two different OSX versions with their software) is a terrible business practice from them.
IMO
Therefore this is more of a 2-year upgrade cycle than yearly. You do NOT have to spend $50 year. I upgrade every other year. $25/yr average is pretty good for software that does such a good job of running Win/Linux installs on OSX in a virtual machine.
Apple updates OSX EVERY year now. Would I love to get an upgrade from Parallels for cheaper or even free? Yes of course. But I do not expect them to keep updating their two year old product to work with a new version of OSX every year. They are a software company and need to put out software to make money. I personally do not think requiring an upgrade every 2-years (or after supporting two different OSX versions with their software) is a terrible business practice from them.
IMO
I don't disagree in principle with what you're saying, and I know they need to get paid. But, as I said in an earlier post the fact that they want $50 for the upgrade, and insist on getting the $50 from me on a per machine basis is ridiculous.
I just received my upgrade email from Parallels. I was further incensed to see this among the "features" of the new version:
"Virtual Machines use less memory, helping you get the most out of your Mac"
That, in my view does not constitute a new feature. It's a performance improvement/bug fix that should be pushed out as a patch to my Desktop 9 version install.
No
Parallels tools will install when you boot the VM and when complete will prompt you to restart the VM.
Very simple process.
I just checked the email and you may be correct. I was running Parallels 7 at the time and that version would not run Mavericks. I don't konw aobut 8. I will fix my original post.
Agreed that $50/year is very stiff for upgrade pricing. And to add, Parallels spamming users upon launching the app to upgrade to the latest version was disgusting.
Regarding VM in Parallels 10 using 10% less memory than 9, I disagree that it isn't a feature. As a developer, I know how hard it is to optimize, improve performance, and reduce memory consumption. It isn't any less work than adding a new feature. In fact, it is often a lot more work than adding a new feature.
Anyway, I use VMWare's Fusion, which has just as ridiculous annual upgrade pricing (brand new is $60, upgrade is $50).
Three years I could live with. Two years, not so much. Especially at that price for upgrades, and the fact that I have to multiply that $50 by three every time.
Yeah, but if you bought within about 2 months before this time frame and you push them, you can get them to either give you a better price or possibly the upgrade free depending on when you bought it.So basically if you bought it 2 weeks before the new release. Great.
I have pushed them and gotten free once because I purchased about 3 days before the upgrade period and the other times, I usually got the upgrade for about $10.
So, if you have recently purchased but don't fall within their time frame, push for a better deal.
I upgraded because it provided better performance for AutoCAD.
If I was just using this as a consumer, I would be upset.
I do not really think, though, that the target market for Parallels is the consumer market. It is for the professionals. Those of us that want to have a Mac at the office and need to still run proprietary Windows programs.
The $50/year cost is pretty insignificant as compared to the cost of, for example, our MRP software. The initial outlay on that was on the scale of multiple tens of thousands of dollars and our annual fees are just over $50,000/year.
To be able to run that in an OSX environment as efficiently and seamlessly as possible is worth $50 without question.
I think this is the sort of economics at play for Parallels. They are not really trying to sell this product to the "regular joe". Frankly, the "gaming" part of it is silly anyway. If you are getting this to game, you're doing it wrong. There isn't a mac out (maybe Pro?) that is anywhere near a great gaming PC and even if it was, you wouldn't play windows games in OSX. You'd dual boot.
I do not really think, though, that the target market for Parallels is the consumer market. It is for the professionals. Those of us that want to have a Mac at the office and need to still run proprietary Windows programs.
The $50/year cost is pretty insignificant as compared to the cost of, for example, our MRP software. The initial outlay on that was on the scale of multiple tens of thousands of dollars and our annual fees are just over $50,000/year.
To be able to run that in an OSX environment as efficiently and seamlessly as possible is worth $50 without question.
I think this is the sort of economics at play for Parallels. They are not really trying to sell this product to the "regular joe". Frankly, the "gaming" part of it is silly anyway. If you are getting this to game, you're doing it wrong. There isn't a mac out (maybe Pro?) that is anywhere near a great gaming PC and even if it was, you wouldn't play windows games in OSX. You'd dual boot.
Trust me, I know all about VMWare. An OS X upgrade broke some functionality that I really needed in VMWare, and rather than pay them $150 to upgrade all three of my licenses I did an competitive upgrade to Parallels for $29 per.
Guess I'll do what I said I'd do earlier. Upgrade Parallels on my office iMac, and keep running 9 until it no longer works on my other two Macs. Then decide whether to upgrade to 11 (?) or move over to Bootcamp for the little I need it.
What's the command? I installed Desktop 9 on my Yosemite DP6 install this morning, and it wouldn't launch.
The fact that a particular version of a Parallels is fully compatible with older systems doesn't mean that an older version of Parallels is fully compatible with newer systems. And that's the problem: if we update OS X, we must also update Parellels for decent performance.
I just tried it, I have to admit, it's FAST. It also fixes a ton of stuff. Moving between spaces, the windows wrap around now. So if you use all monitors and switch the order of them, it's smart enough and instant to work again.
Definitely buying the upgrade. Lots of new features over 9. Not sure why everyone is complaining and talking about some upgrade service. Keep using 9, still works in Yosemite. or if you want the speed increase and the integration with Yosemite, then pay the upgrade costs. I don't get why people think they are entitled to everything for free.
You sound like the people that are pissed because the iPhone 3gs does not work with iOS 7. You did not pay for lifetime upgrades.
Definitely buying the upgrade. Lots of new features over 9. Not sure why everyone is complaining and talking about some upgrade service. Keep using 9, still works in Yosemite. or if you want the speed increase and the integration with Yosemite, then pay the upgrade costs. I don't get why people think they are entitled to everything for free.
You sound like the people that are pissed because the iPhone 3gs does not work with iOS 7. You did not pay for lifetime upgrades.
VirtualBox is surprisingly good, but I've used it and can't recommend it if you want to use it for 3D graphical editing or games in Windows. It doesn't have good support for 3D video acceleration. You can enable it as an experimental feature, but whenever I do that, I get a BSOD in the Windows guest machine. I've also seen some other weird incompatibilities. You could give it a try anyway since it's free
VMWare Fusion, which I have, seems to provide better support for Windows than VirtualBox does. 3D video acceleration works fine, and I never run into the weird issues Windows guests have in VirtualBox. I usually just use VirtualBox for Linux or BSD guests or in headless mode to host my FreeBSD server.
Last edited:
It's called a beta for a reason.
I'm sure they'll work it out before Yosemite goes gold.
I guess everyone is under the assumption that Parallels 9 will not work with Yosemite. I don't think that's the case. Yosemite still in Beta, and I'm sure Parallels will release an update. Didn't they do that with Parallels 9 / Mavericks?