Parallels Desktop 7 for Mac Allows You to Run Windows and Even Another Copy of Lion

[strwrsfrk]

Parallels Has Been Great

I've never fired up VMWare, so this is not a comparison post.

All I know is that I've been running Parallels 6 for over a year without a hitch. Twice it has seen my preexisting Bootcamp partition fine, and I've never had kernel panics. Windows has crashed maybe seven times in a year, and each time was after hours of prolonged gaming.

I went Parallels because the graphics were supposedly better than VMWare. So far, I really haven't been disappointed.

If you want something cheap and easy, though (and don't need gaming power), go VirtualBox .

 

[heffeque]

I used to use Parallels - now a happy VMWare user.

If you have any interest in development, Linux and stuff like that then VMWare is a much much better choice. There's a large community of people out there producing virtual machines in VMWare format.

Same here. Happy user of VMWare. Although I know that it's a bit slower than Parallels, it's more stable and I can use it with more stuff (on Snow Leopard with Windows 7 and Ubuntu running at the same time).

 

[godrifle]

Depends on your definition of "better"

VMWare is updated less often which means that it doesnt always have some of the cutting edge features(for instance you still cannot virtualize Lion on it yet), but at least in my experience it is significantly more stable and performs better to boot. However since I do not virtualize Windows, I virtualize Leopard Server and Linux, and dont do any graphics stuff on either platform YMMV.

My experience is exactly the opposite. Parallels outperforms VMWare across the board, and is rock solid stable for me.

But I don't like the upgrade pricing. :-(

 

[cgc]

Does this allow Blu-ray playback?

No, but it will enble your Mac's parallel port.

----------

...But I hear there are some good things in the next version [of VMWare Fusion]...

Such as?

I'm a long-time VMWare Fusion user (since v1) and prefer stability over speed but Parallels 6 was noticably faster than Fusion 3 so I was tempted but decided to wait until Parallels 7 and Fusion 4. VirtualBox doesn't work on my system or doesn't like my legit version of Windows Vista Business 32-bit which I got from college so that's not an option either.

 

[JoJoCal19]

I would never buy Parallels again. I had the first couple of versions and had horrible experience with it. Switched to VMWare and haven't looked back. I haven't had one issue with VMWare after using it for years.

 

[KPOM]

You can only virtualise Snow Leopard (and Leopard?) Server, the client EULA doesn't allow virtualising.

I run Snow Leopard Server as VM on my i7 MacBook Air and it works OK, except that it defaults to 1024x768 and I haven't figured out yet how to change it.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

I run Snow Leopard Server as VM on my i7 MacBook Air and it works OK, except that it defaults to 1024x768 and I haven't figured out yet how to change it.

If you use VMware, then install the darwin VMware Tools within the SL VM, and reboot the VM. The installation is a menu option. Then open the "Display" preferences within the SL VM.

 

[Spectrum]

What is mentioned in that article is that the EULA was changed to allow LION client to be virtualized, not SNOW LEOPARD client.

What I need, before I switch to Lion, is to be able to virtualize Snow Leopard so I can run a few apps that require Rosetta. Some of those apps have no upgrade path to Lion and they are essential to my business, so I'm stuck using SL.

Exactly! When will Apple acknowledge there are users out there that require Rosetta for some old apps? It's not rocket science to realise that people have old files that need old software to open them!

I have sent multiple request to Apple about this, and hopefully if everyone else does too, they may finally endorse an official route for virtualising SL (or earlier).

http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html

 

[mudman2]

Using the VM Ware beta is kinda slow but on the previous beta it was to , the production was fast.

VMware all the way, now I just need a VMware Desktop that will run Lion at work under Windows 7 so I can macify my work machine

 

[Lefty Loco]

Ehh...

I tried using Parallels but it would not serve my purpose, which was to manage the security software for the electronic entry system of the building I manage. I also found it to be very buggy and clunky. Granted, I was still new to Mac at that time, and a lot of it could have been user error and ignorance. I ended up buying a cheap Windows laptop and dedicating it solely to the security system. Although I understand there are still some business functions that require Windows, I now subscribe to the school of thought that if you have a Mac, why in the name of all that is holy would you want to pollute it with Windows?

 

[badjohny]

If I purchase parallels from the app store, will that allow me to install it on all my macs?

Q: Can I use apps from the Mac App Store on more than one computer?

A: Apps from the Mac App Store may be used on any Macs that you own or control for your personal use.

That is from apples FAQ about app store purchases. So I assume that it allows me too. I don't use windows applications much, and its mostly for games. None of which are very intensive. Older games that will never have mac ports and that have no need for the extra umph that booting into bootcamp requires.

Also, would I need two copies of windows 7? I assume that isn't covered under the app store purchase even though you can purchase it through parallels 7 now.

 

[Navdakilla]

Will this run solid on a base 13 MBP 2010?

 

[satchow]

Does this allow Blu-ray playback?

Yes. I've been able to use my USB BluRay drive to watch BR discs in Windows using Parallels.

 

[arkmannj]

Snow Leopard

I wonder if Parallels would let you install SL? (I'm looking from e technical perspective, not an EULA) For my purposes virtualizing versions of Mac OS X prior to Lion would be of more value. (especially if I could virtualize classic, which I know it can't do.. would be awesome if Apple open sourced the code for Rosetta and the Virtualization companies could perhaps make use of it. )


and like others have said, where is VMWare? I've been a big fan of their products but Fusion just feels like it's getting old and not well attended to.

 

[Phil Lee]

I was a user of VMWare Fusion but switched to Parallels after a series of articles showed that Parallels was a lot faster, in some cases twice as fast, as Fusion. I've been very happy with Parallels 6 and will probably upgrade.

I'm not sure why people seem to want something for nothing when it comes to software products. The developers need to pay programmers to write the software. That doesn't come cheap. It certainly isn't fair to compare the upgrade fee for Parallels to the fee for Lion, which is heavily subsidised by Apple.

 

[justjohn025]

So, if we were to run a copy of Windows 7 in Parallels on Lion in a Parallels VM in Lion...which was itself being run in a Parallels VM on Lion as well, would Leo DiCaprio show up?

You would open a black hole

 

[phillipduran]

We need to go deeper!

 

[mabaker]

I hope Parallels pays MacRumors for the advertising.

 

[talmy]

My question about 7 is, since it now supports Lion's full screen mode, will it still support the old full screen mode so I can run Windows full screen on one display and Lion full screen on another?

My Parallels history -- used since version 1. About version 3 I tried Fusion as well since Parallels support had (or should I say has) always been shoddy but found Fusion less well integrated into OS X and ran the apps I was concerned about slower. I do use VirtualBox for Linux VMs.

In general I buy only full versions, not upgrades, and wait for the full versions to be on sale for less cost than the upgrade price.

 

[cdavis11]

I agree, upgrade price is steep.

But I shrugged and paid it anyway.

It does fix the USB connection bug that had cropped up after the last update when running lion.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Now all we need is Parallels Server to support 10.7 and the world will be a happier place. Since ESXi doesn't support 10.7 or any hardware other than Xserver 3,1; Parallels Server could be a huge selling point with the 10.7 guest support.

 

[smithrh]

I hope Parallels pays MacRumors for the advertising.

Not only MacRumors but at least one other fairly popular Mac website posted "articles" about this version. Pretty much reads like a press release.

But onto the topic at hand, I'm at Parallels 4 and have never really a compelling reason to upgrade. Not a fan of Parallels in-app advertising nor of their pricing schemes.

Product is OK but can be confusing to new users and frustrating to experienced users. Many users run into confounding issues with not a lot of support from Parallels; I've not but I keep my configuration locked down to avoid it.

 

[CylonGlitch]

I would never buy Parallels again. I had the first couple of versions and had horrible experience with it. Switched to VMWare and haven't looked back. I haven't had one issue with VMWare after using it for years.

Same with me. I had a problem with Parallels 3; after it working for several months it refused to run anymore. It would immediately crash. Tech support gave me a list of things to try, nothing worked. Re-install, nope, still crashing. More tech support ideas, failed. Finally tech support said that v4 would be out in a month or two, I could try upgrading to that and see if it would fix the problem. Seriously? Pay more money to fix a bug in their software and it *MIGHT* work. I switched to fusion and have never had a problem. BTW, when 4 came out, I downloaded the free trial. . . same error.

I use Fusion for work, thus stability is much more important than speed for me. This an being able to create images that can be used with VMWare Player for windows is just awesome sauce.

 

[tinman0]

I'm not sure why people seem to want something for nothing when it comes to software products. The developers need to pay programmers to write the software. That doesn't come cheap. It certainly isn't fair to compare the upgrade fee for Parallels to the fee for Lion, which is heavily subsidised by Apple.

It's not that we want something for nothing, it's that we don't like getting orphaned by a software package so quickly. Parallels version updates are twice as often as they need.

I like to stay current, but I don't want to be laying out money every year for the same package.

Parallels lost the plot when they had full screen animations as the background for the preload menus! My machine struggled just trying to run that smoothly (which it failed miserably).

 

[gdkid2010]

I'm upgrading now. Pretty seamless so far. The updates make the $50 worth it