Parallels Desktop 15 Switches to Apple's Metal Graphics API, Gains Sidecar, Keychain, and Drag and Drop Support

[theluggage]

Yes you’re forced to upgrade each time a new MACOS version comes out, it doesn’t matter if it can run on the new OS version. It’s programmed to stop opening and ask you to pay to keep it working.

Citation needed, as they say.

I've been using Parallels more or less since it came out and a version is usually good for 2-3 MacOS versions. I've just upgraded to V15 from version 12 which was originally released for El Capitain, but was working with a few glitches (that didn't affect me) under Mojave. Yes, you get an 'ad' box when a new version comes out, but you can tell it to go away.

Its a hypervisor that needs to tie closely into both the host and guest operating system, so its no great surprise that it often breaks with major OS upgrades. Programmers need to eat hot meals and sleep indoors and you can't expect free upgrades for life for a single sub-$100 purchase. $40 every 2-3 years is hardly usury.

That said, Parallels don't help their case - you'd be forgiven from their advertising and reminder emails for thinking that you do need an upgrade for every Mac OS version, and they have an irritating habit of 'pushing' a cut-price upgrade offer a month or two before a new version comes out. The subscription price for the Pro version (with features that used to be part of the standard one) is a bit steep, too.

 

[PastaPrimav]

I can see you don’t run your own or anybody else’s business.
Nothing is free.

Yep. Do.

macOS is free.

If they charged a fee for macOS (like they did for a long, long time, and only stopped doing a few years ago) than macOS would be not free. But they don't. Anymore. macOS itself is free. macOS updates are free.

Parallels is welcome to charge whatever they want for new versions, as long as they also push out free updates to older versions to maintain compatibility with newer macOS updates. But they don't, and have taken to bundling mere compatibility updates with their full version upgrades.

A version of Parallels purchased for $50 should work for more than 1 year.
[doublepost=1565887930][/doublepost]

I've been using Parallels more or less since it came out and a version is usually good for 2-3 MacOS versions.

Nope. Completely and totally false.
[doublepost=1565888023][/doublepost]

His idea is we pay for the macOS upgrade as part of hardware cost, hence the “free upgrade” is not free.

Yeah that thought took a lot of imagination. And what were we paying for when macOS upgrades had their own fee and were purchased on disc or through the App Store?

macOS is free.

 

[HutNews]

Has anyone tried it? I am about to risk it. Problem with 14 - it drops the network connections sometimes.

Parallels today announced version 15 of its desktop virtualization software for Mac

 

[Mac Hammer Fan]

Has anyone tried it? I am about to risk it. Problem with 14 - it drops the network connections sometimes.

I posted my experience here this morning at 10:35 AM. There are 3D problems at this moment. But I expect they soon will release an update that fixes this issues.

 

[MacRS4]

Yep. Do.

macOS is free.

If they charged a fee for macOS (like they did for a long, long time, and only stopped doing a few years ago) than macOS would be not free. But they don't. Anymore. macOS itself is free. macOS updates are free.

Parallels is welcome to charge whatever they want for new versions, as long as they also push out free updates to older versions to maintain compatibility with newer macOS updates. But they don't, and have taken to bundling mere compatibility updates with their full version upgrades.

A version of Parallels purchased for $50 should work for more than 1 year.
[doublepost=1565887930][/doublepost]
Nope. Completely and totally false.
[doublepost=1565888023][/doublepost]

Yeah that thought took a lot of imagination. And what were we paying for when macOS upgrades had their own fee and were purchased on disc or through the App Store?

macOS is free.

So...

Option A: Apple employees write and update MacOS for free, on equipment they've purchased themselves, and gift it to Apple to pass on for free.
Option B: Apple pays the employees to write and update MacOS, with those costs coming from other budgets....such as products Apple sells.... like the Macbook/iMac/Mini range for example.

Historically: Apple pays the employees to write and update MacOS, with those costs being partly or all met by selling the upgrades.

One of these is stupid.

All you're talking about is where work and product is funded from - it is NOT free. You hear the same argument here in the UK about the NHS being 'free'. It isn't free, we all pay for it, just not at point of consumption, which is what you mean I think.

Ref Parallels - I've every version of Parallels since version 6, and use it across many machines (Fusion since version 3), and the only time I've *had* to upgrade because of compatibility issues was been with PDP11 - I had tons of networking issues after the MacOS upgrade. All the others have been upgraded because.....we can, and prefer to be on the current version of stuff.

I'm sure you're not, but you don't half sound like you're posting angry aha
[doublepost=1565890899][/doublepost]For what it's worth, PDP15 is working just great on my 2019 i9 MBP, but seems a little clunky on my iMac Pro? Could be that machine, I'll try the MBP machine on it see if it makes any difference.

 

[HutNews]

seems a little clunky on my iMac Pro

Can you give slightly more description of clunky? i am willing to install it on Mac Pro canister.

 

[H2SO4]

Yep. Do.

macOS is free.

If they charged a fee for macOS (like they did for a long, long time, and only stopped doing a few years ago) than macOS would be not free. But they don't. Anymore. macOS itself is free. macOS updates are free.

Parallels is welcome to charge whatever they want for new versions, as long as they also push out free updates to older versions to maintain compatibility with newer macOS updates. But they don't, and have taken to bundling mere compatibility updates with their full version upgrades.

A version of Parallels purchased for $50 should work for more than 1 year.
[doublepost=1565887930][/doublepost]
Nope. Completely and totally false.
[doublepost=1565888023][/doublepost]

Yeah that thought took a lot of imagination. And what were we paying for when macOS upgrades had their own fee and were purchased on disc or through the App Store?

macOS is free.

No, it is NOT free. That's like saying a plastic bag is free when you buy shopping. No, they've inflated the cost of the goods to cover.
You are the perfect customer for Apple. Tim Cook would love you.

 

[PastaPrimav]

No, it is NOT free. That's like saying a plastic bag is free when you buy shopping. No, they've inflated the cost of the goods to cover.
You are the perfect customer for Apple. Tim Cook would love you.

It is free, because they do not charge for. Unlike products that they do charge for. This fundamental concept of business seems to be lost on you.

Customers are paying exactly the same for the hardware regardless of whether Apple charges for the software updates, and today, they don't. In very recent history, they did. And guess what? Customers still paid for hardware then too.

You can keep going on and on. The non-point you're trying to make is not lost on anyone...it just doesn't matter.
[doublepost=1565894551][/doublepost]

So...

Option A: Apple employees write and update MacOS for free, on equipment they've purchased themselves, and gift it to Apple to pass on for free.
Option B: Apple pays the employees to write and update MacOS, with those costs coming from other budgets....such as products Apple sells.... like the Macbook/iMac/Mini range for example.

Historically: Apple pays the employees to write and update MacOS, with those costs being partly or all met by selling the upgrades.

One of these is stupid.

All you're talking about is where work and product is funded from - it is NOT free. You hear the same argument here in the UK about the NHS being 'free'. It isn't free, we all pay for it, just not at point of consumption, which is what you mean I think.

Ref Parallels - I've every version of Parallels since version 6, and use it across many machines (Fusion since version 3), and the only time I've *had* to upgrade because of compatibility issues was been with PDP11 - I had tons of networking issues after the MacOS upgrade. All the others have been upgraded because.....we can, and prefer to be on the current version of stuff.

I'm sure you're not, but you don't half sound like you're posting angry aha

This non-argument that "nothing is free" is absurd, boring, and unimpressive. No one needs to tell anyone that "free" products are paid for in other ways.

This is a very simple distinction between products that paid for directly, or not paid for directly.

macOS used to be. Today it is not. Period.

 

[Stephen.R]

Has anyone tried it? I am about to risk it. Problem with 14 - it drops the network connections sometimes.

I've got it on two macs now (2018 Mac mini and 2018 MBP15). Had to uninstall and reinstall on the Mini due to a bunch of weird issues, but no issues on the MBP.

I don't use it for Windows very much though, it mostly runs headless linux servers on my machines.

 

[H2SO4]

It is free, because they do not charge for. Unlike products that they do charge for. This fundamental concept of business seems to be lost on you.

Customers are paying exactly the same for the hardware regardless of whether Apple charges for the software updates, and today, they don't. In very recent history, they did. And guess what? Customers still paid for hardware then too.

You can keep going on and on. The non-point you're trying to make is not lost on anyone...it just doesn't matter.

I honestly think you are trolling me so it stops here.
I’m going to hazard a guess that if you were to ask ANY company if they have factored the development costs of updates into their business model it means you’ve paid for it. What it also means is you’re too myopic to see that.

 

[H2SO4]

It is free, because they do not charge for. Unlike products that they do charge for. This fundamental concept of business seems to be lost on you.

Customers are paying exactly the same for the hardware regardless of whether Apple charges for the software updates, and today, they don't. In very recent history, they did. And guess what? Customers still paid for hardware then too.

You can keep going on and on. The non-point you're trying to make is not lost on anyone...it just doesn't matter.

I honestly think you are trolling me so it stops here.
I’m going to hazard a guess that if you were to ask ANY company if they have factored the development costs of updates into their business model it means you’ve paid for it. What it also means is you’re too myopic to see that.
[doublepost=1565895686][/doublepost]

It is free, because they do not charge for. Unlike products that they do charge for. This fundamental concept of business seems to be lost on you.

Customers are paying exactly the same for the hardware regardless of whether Apple charges for the software updates, and today, they don't. In very recent history, they did. And guess what? Customers still paid for hardware then too.

You can keep going on and on. The non-point you're trying to make is not lost on anyone...it just doesn't matter.
[doublepost=1565894551][/doublepost]

This non-argument that "nothing is free" is absurd, boring, and unimpressive. No one needs to tell anyone that "free" products are paid for in other ways.

This is a very simple distinction between products that paid for directly, or not paid for directly.

macOS used to be. Today it is not. Period.

You just shot your self in the foot. What’s the common theme in the two parts of your post I highlighted?
That’s right, “paid for”

 

[PastaPrimav]

I honestly think you are trolling me so it stops here.
I’m going to hazard a guess that if you were to ask ANY company if they have factored the development costs of updates into their business model it means you’ve paid for it. What it also means is you’re too myopic to see that.
[doublepost=1565895686][/doublepost]
You just shot your self in the foot. What’s the common theme in the two parts of your post I highlighted?
That’s right, “paid for”

You're still hopelessly lost. You're trying obsessively to make some ridiculous boring point about how costs are managed for free products and still don't seem to realize that it is completely and totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with the conversation.

Apple doesn't charge $19, or $29, or $99 for macOS updates (anymore). Period. That is the only point that is relevant to this conversation.

 

[H2SO4]

You're still hopelessly lost. You're trying obsessively to make some ridiculous boring point about how costs are managed for free products and still don't seem to realize that it is completely and totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with the conversation.

Apple doesn't charge $19, or $29, or $99 for macOS updates (anymore). Period. That is the only point that is relevant to this conversation.

Again. YOU, shot yourself, in the foot.
You said it wasn’t free. You.

 

[theluggage]

Anymore. macOS itself is free. macOS updates are free.

[/QUOTE]

True - in the sense that there's no 'MacOS surcharge' line on the bill and you don't have to hand over money for upgrades any more, but there's no legal way of obtaining a license to use MacOS or the upgrades other than buying a Mac in the first place, so that's a somewhat pedantic point. Apple will have - somewhere in the labyrinth of their accounts - a notional value for not only the MacOS license you got with your Mac but the likely value of the future upgrades you'll receive (otherwise they might have to pay tax...!)

Problem is, sorry to break it to you and @H2SO4, but language is ambiguous. When a Certain Large Online Retailer says "For $90/year you get free delivery!" - or, for that matter, when a $80/year software subscription comes with "free upgrades" it's probably time to stop arguing about whether or not a benefit only available to people who've bought an expensive computer from the same company can be usefully described as "free".

Bottom line is that Apple can afford to give away much of its software (and sell Logic and FCPx dirt cheap by pro Audio/Video software standards) because it helps sell computers, which is where they make real money. A software publisher (like Parallels) on the other hand actually need to get their income by selling software - and offering free lifetime updates on a one-off $100 purchase is not going to make money.

Nope. Completely and totally false.

So please describe which versions of Parallels were "programmed to stop opening and ask you to pay" as the person I was quoting claimed (...which goes somewhat beyond 'not pushing out free updates'). As I said, I've been using it for 12 years and have been "forced" to upgrade about 4 times.

Partly, complaints should be directed to Apple for insisting on releasing a major OS upgrade with software-breaking changes every. flipping. year, making major changes to the beta until the last moment then encouraging all and sundry to hit upgrade the millisecond they release it...

 

[HutNews]

I've got it on two macs now (2018 Mac mini and 2018 MBP15). Had to uninstall and reinstall on the Mini due to a bunch of weird issues, but no issues on the MBP.

I don't use it for Windows very much though, it mostly runs headless linux servers on my machines.

I went for it on the canister Mac Pro and it works great. So far quickbooks, java apps office, works good. No hick-ups. I did back everything up just in case.

All accounts seemed to have been logged in, no authentication to office or the general things were required. Of course the proprietary apps requested login as normal.

Thank you all.

 

[Shirasaki]

Again. YOU, shot yourself, in the foot.
You said it wasn’t free. You.

At this point neither party can convince each other. You and I believe the cost of macOS is not free. It’s just that we don’t pay $99, $49, or god forbidden, $299 for a major upgrade (imagine in Tim era) anymore. The other side however, calls this point “boring and pointless” and still claim “macOS is free”. I have a feeling that we are running in circles.

 

[H2SO4]

At this point neither party can convince each other. You and I believe the cost of macOS is not free. It’s just that we don’t pay $99, $49, or god forbidden, $299 for a major upgrade (imagine in Tim era) anymore. The other side however, calls this point “boring and pointless” and still claim “macOS is free”. I have a feeling that we are running in circles.

I agree.
I run a small business myself and nothing is free.
Anything you give away is either goodwill as far as ‘free’ goes or a loss leader.
Both are designed to get future custom in the door.
In both cases you adjust future sales and investments to offset that loss.
If you are accounting for and reacting to that loss in a reasonable business cycle in any way it’s not free.

 

[MacRS4]

Can you give slightly more description of clunky? i am willing to install it on Mac Pro canister.

Bit of a red herring - one of my main Windows 10 VMs just felt a bit laggy. Screen refreshes for example. Now using the VM from my MBP on the iMac Pro and it's absolutely fine. The one on the iMac is on Windows insider and updated a few days ago - so my guess is it's more to do with that then the Parallels install.

I'll be using it most of today so I'll report back if I find anything wrong, seems fine however for the few hours I've been using it - it was *just* the VM I happened to have on the 'pro at the time.
[doublepost=1565944855][/doublepost]

It is free, because they do not charge for. Unlike products that they do charge for. This fundamental concept of business seems to be lost on you.

Customers are paying exactly the same for the hardware regardless of whether Apple charges for the software updates, and today, they don't. In very recent history, they did. And guess what? Customers still paid for hardware then too.

You can keep going on and on. The non-point you're trying to make is not lost on anyone...it just doesn't matter.
[doublepost=1565894551][/doublepost]

This non-argument that "nothing is free" is absurd, boring, and unimpressive. No one needs to tell anyone that "free" products are paid for in other ways.

This is a very simple distinction between products that paid for directly, or not paid for directly.

macOS used to be. Today it is not. Period.

Why so angry, dude? Things have a cost associated to them, that cost is covered from somewhere. It's not that complex a thing. Directly/Indirectly is the key comment really. Neither is free, both paid for, just in different ways.

 

[nihil0]

If it helps anyone, I installed the trial and a fresh copy of Windows 7, and Fallout 4... and it runs like garbage. I have a i7-4790k processor, 32GB RAM, and an AMD RX 580 (with 8GB VRAM).

I can only assign 4 cores to the VM unless I upgrade to Pro, and I can only assign 2GB of VRAM to the VM as well. I have 16GB of RAM allotted. It runs - better than I expected - but even with all settings set to low the game has huge frame rate drops and is just jerky as heck. It’s not totally unplayable, but when the game runs 60fps under a proper windows install on the same machine, I don’t really see this as a viable option.

I should add that neither the GPU nor CPU seem overly taxed by this. The GPU shows 100% usage but the temps stay around 62°C so I know it’s probably not actually being used 100% (or else it’d be hitting around 86° and the fans would be kicking on). I may fiddle with settings more but I just don’t see this being useful for full 3D games. Simpler games I’m sure will be fine, but I find it odd they specifically named Fallout. I’m wondering if I need to install the AMD drivers in Windows? Parallels does say that certain features will require Catalina; maybe it’ll improve my issues.
[doublepost=1565802173][/doublepost]

Running Fallout 4, and the CPU is surprisingly not being used much at all - it remains to run lightly, but it’s jerky as heck. I haven’t tested any lighter or older games yet.

Are you on Catalina or Mojave?

 

[PastaPrimav]

So please describe which versions of Parallels were "programmed to stop opening and ask you to pay" as the person I was quoting claimed (...which goes somewhat beyond 'not pushing out free updates'). As I said, I've been using it for 12 years and have been "forced" to upgrade about 4 times.

Partly, complaints should be directed to Apple for insisting on releasing a major OS upgrade with software-breaking changes every. flipping. year, making major changes to the beta until the last moment then encouraging all and sundry to hit upgrade the millisecond they release it...

All of them for the last several years. Parallels is very hacked together to actually work, and that is evident by the fact that it breaks every year under new macOS updates. Its unacceptable that they charge to fix this flaw in their product.

Parallels 14. Right now. Broken on macOS Catalina. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Stephen.R]

All of them for the last several years.

I have to agree with @theluggage here - while the new versions claim "full compatibility", it's not often the old version won't work. Last year, v13 worked fine on Mojave, it just didn't support Dark Mode.

I (or technically, my business) pay the subscription yearly, because honestly anything that's less than an hour's billable time for a year, is not even really worth the time to worry about. But then I (the business) also have a license for VMWare Fusion too, and even with both (and VBox) installed and usable, I still use Parallels as my day-to-day solution. (VMWare is basically only used for building vagrant boxes, and on rare occasion when I need to debug something to see if it's a vagrant (or Box) issue or a Parallels-specific issue.

 

[MacRS4]

My experience is the same. Like I say, the only one I was 'forced' to upgrade on was PDP11 due to some NW issues.

 

[PastaPrimav]

worked fine

No, and the use of this expression is why this isn't a conversation, and why I can barely find a worthwhile discussion on this entire forum. The sum total of what people have to offer is "worked fine". No, they don't "work fine".

 

[theluggage]

No, and the use of this expression is why this isn't a conversation, and why I can barely find a worthwhile discussion on this entire forum. The sum total of what people have to offer is "worked fine". No, they don't "work fine".

Clearly your idea of a "worthwhile discussion" is one where everybody agrees with you unconditionally even when you are quite demonstrably wrong.

My original reply was to someone else who was claiming that Parallels was "programmed to stop opening and ask you to pay" on every MacOS update - which is completely false. Maybe V14 isn't working for you under the beta version of Catalina (it will have plenty of company in that respect) - quite possible - but your claim that every version of Parallels breaks at every Mac OS upgrade means that you're either very unlucky or just delusional.

NB: if you run beta versions of MacOS, stuff will break.

 

[PastaPrimav]

but your claim that every version of Parallels breaks at every Mac OS upgrade means that you're either very unlucky or just delusional.

This is not a "claim". You people need to understand the difference between reality and unreality. There are no versions of reality. You try to mask unreality as opinion and I'm just not buying it.

Parallels is an extremely hacked together program that breaks very easily. This is well known, and not subject to debate here. Every macOS update has a negative impact on the current version of Parallels and never works as well as it did on the previous version. The multitude of examples of "how" are something only users of the actual program would know and understand, because the subtleties of it are vast and impossible to just list.

Heavily degraded performance and numerous bugs does not equal "works fine". Although I know it does for some people who just have to argue that things are fine.