I'm not sure it will copy over everything or just migrate applications. I'll have a look later and let you know. I'd be surprised if it can migrate the entire system though.
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 9 with OS X Mavericks and Cloud Services Support Launches for Existing Customers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not sure it will copy over everything or just migrate applications. I'll have a look later and let you know. I'd be surprised if it can migrate the entire system though.
Or just use a real PC which doesn't need crutches to run Windows software.
Seriously. I don't understand why people buy Macs only to run the software that they need in a virtualized Windows environment. That neither makes technical nor economical sense. And the fact that VMWare and Parallels sold millions of copies of their desktop virtualization solutions only shows that OS X ALONE still is not a 100% viable platform for most users.
If you can't migrate 100% to a different platform - no matter if that platform is going to be OS X, Linux, FreeBSD or anything else - then don't even think about switching.
I used Parallels versions 7 and 8 as I recall before giving up and building the Windows machine. I was using Parallels on a MacBook. I have not tried it with a more powerful machine or SSD, which I am sure would help. I did notice that the slowness got worse with time; I reinstalled once or twice and it ran OK for a while and then bogged down again. I was using Win XP. It is such an elegant solution I was sorry to have to abandon it.
...but that doesn't mean you are forced to upgrade every year.
I've been using it since 2006 and have only had 2 paid upgrades + a free upgrade from v6 to v7 (which had been announced when I upgraded to V6).
V7 - now 2 versions behind - works fine for me with Windows 7 & Mountain Lion. Not sure it supports Windows 8 but somehow that doesn't have me crying into my beer.
Depends what you're looking for.
Big improvements to 3D gaming performance is a reason enough for me to upgrade. Also, huge improvements to startup/shutdown times are a major bonus too.
All the other new features are good extras.
No, these issues are caused by the user due to lack of knowledge. Your vm has too many vCPUs which is causing the slowdowns. If you do that in Parallels or Virtualbox you'll end up with the same problems. You shouldn't be assigning more vCPUs than half the amount of physical cores in your machine. If you have the quad core Mac Pro you only have 4 cores, not 8 although OS X let's you believe that (it's 4 physical cores plus hyperthreading which makes OS X think it's 8). In case of a quad core you can only assign no more than 2 vCPUs. In case of dual core it's only 1 vCPU (which is also the default). If you want to use more vCPUs you need to buy the 12-core Mac Pro as it is the only Mac who is capable of assigning more than 2 vCPUs. This is also clearly stated in the manuals.
The best thing you can do with any virtualisation software is to assign as little resources to a vm as possible (keep it to a minimum). Usually they've already reflected this in their templates that you use when creating a new vm. If the performance isn't that great increase things like memory step by step. In about 99% of the cases don't mess with the vCPU settings. Only do so when you want to test multithreaded software or if the software you are using requires it. Messing around with this is almost a 100% guarantee for running into performance problems.
The only things to dislike about Parallels is how it technically works. It doesn't support non-Windows systems that well nor is it very reliable. OS X updates can very easily break Parallels. I haven't seen these issues on Fusion or Virtualbox (although the OS support is lacking in the latter as well but only for the very exotic ones; Linux and FreeBSD support is fine).
So a person should not switch if 99% of their needs would be met better by Mac but 1% needs windows?
As for me, I write mobile apps. iOS needs a Mac. Windows Phone needs Win8. Makes it convenient to have a VM.
I think you're wrong, VMs serve a great need, whether we're talking parallels, Fusion or Vmware server. By running a virtualized environment you gain all the benefits of running an OS for a specific need (or needs) without incurring the costs. At times, I find myself using linux, windows and OSX. Buying a machine machine for each of them is just plain silly.
In the business world where I support servers, we prefer virtual environments over purchasing physical servers. Your disdain for anything apple is coloring your judgement. I have Vmware workstation running on my windows 7 machine at work so I can fire up fedora when ever I need it.
It could be random for you, but not for me. I have to admit that Parallels does a great job in Windows virtualization, and that's it. If you work with linux servers, and want to create VMs fast, then it's not the best solution. And the features that I mentioned are all about creating VMs fast and saving disk space. For example, the ovf format is the main format used for virtual appliances(prebuilt VMs), Vagrant is a great tool for automating VM creation, and the Linked Clones avoid a complete copy of the VM, saving space.
No idea what Microsoft did but as soon as you join a machine to a domain it becomes noticeably slower. Use policies and it gets even worse
Parallels has 3 serious issues imo: it isn't robust technology wise (due to how it is set up things break easily with OS X updates although not always!); they seem to be only aiming at Windows (Linux is ok, any other OS...forget about it); their support is crap: you either don't get any or you get answers/hints/tips that are not helpful at all.
I'm glad there is a forum for users and there are other forums where you can discuss Parallels problems. That's the actual support for Parallels (support by the users). For me as a technician that's fine. It's not like VMware where some of the devs work together with users to get ESXi 5.1 to install and run properly on a Mac mini 2012 for example. Seems like VMware is more interested in the technology side. Same goes for Virtualbox.
Or you could just buy one copy of Parallels and keep using it. Or use free virtualisation software.
That's what I do. I use Vmware Fusion but the mentality is the same. Unless I want a specific feature that the new version offers I'll not upgrade.
The Parallels migration assistant can move an entire Windows install over - talking the OS, files, programs, settings, permissions ... everything.
In fact, the Win7 I've been running in Parallels for over 2 years came from using the Parallels tool to migrate it from my previous HP DV7 notebook
Meant to add: I seem to recall needing to activate it again with MS after it fired up, but that was just seconds once it was connected to the network.
I don't think it, I know it
L
lukemcurley
Guest
There is a nasty bug in Parallels v9 which causes some previous VMs to be almost unusable. My Win7 (64bit) on Parallels Desktop v9 keeps dropping devices in Device Manager and refreshing and adding them back again. Work around provided by support didn't fix the problem for me. So now I'm considering rolling back to Parallels v8 until they fix this issue.
There is a busy thread on the Parallels Desktop support forum about the issue.
There is a busy thread on the Parallels Desktop support forum about the issue.
L
lukemcurley
Guest
Same problem here! I already rolled back to version 8
Is it just a case of dragging Parallels 9 to the trash can and copying over Parallels 8 and running it?
Not sure if it is documented. It happened in my case. Now running Parallels 9 and issue is gone.
This entire line of commentary is downright silly. First, virtualization is actually ENTIRELY sensical from both a technical and economical perspective. How else do you think these solutions sell the "millions of copies" that you yourself admitted to?
Second, your claim at the end about it being an all-or-nothing proposition isn't backed up by any logic. Virtualization does a great job of filling in the gaps. And that's on top of the fact that for things like software testing, virtualization has an entirely different set of use cases.
Seriously, what's your axe to grind, and why?
Ok, here's my story and frustration. I have Parallels 8. I also have a 15" rMBP. Was running Windows 8 flawlessly, then I foolishly updated to the Windows 8.1 beta. After that, Windows became totally useless. Why? Because the DPI is locked to microscopic levels (full 2880, no way to scale properly). I've tried every setting in both Windows and Parallels to scale everything in proportion (not talking setting to 200%, etc).
Nothing works.
I effectively have not been able to use Windows for months, since updating to 8.1
Now it seems I have to pay $49 to read text on my screen (and that's assuming they fixed the scaling with Parallels 9). Thanks guys.
----------
Nothing works.
I effectively have not been able to use Windows for months, since updating to 8.1
Now it seems I have to pay $49 to read text on my screen (and that's assuming they fixed the scaling with Parallels 9). Thanks guys.
----------
Are you on a rMBP? My 8.1 resolution on Parallels 8 is microscopic. It's totally unusable.
