Parallels desktop new license renewal
- Thread starter PeterJP
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
russell_314
macrumors G3
If you buy the subscription version you pay once a year and get all updates. If you buy the regular version you pay for that version and that’s what you get. You get updates but only point ones like 12.1 to 12.2 not new version like 13.0. If you're someone who feels they have to be on the newest everything then the subscription model might be better for you
mj_
macrumors 68000
If you buy the subscription, which based on your question sounds like you are interested in, you get all updates, minor (15.1 -> 15.2) and major (15.2 -> 16.0) included at any time you wish to install them for as long as your subscription is active. However, keep in mind that once your subscription expires you will loose access to the software entirely, and won't be able to continue using the last released and installed version any longer. The perpetual license in return will limit you to minor updates only but will never expire, and you will be able to continue using it for as long as you want.
One thing to keep in mind though is that Parallels does have the ability to cut you off from using your perpetual license any time if they ever wish to do so by simply shutting down the activation service for that particular version. They never did so in the past, and there is absolutely no hint of evidence they ever intend to but it's something you should keep in mind nevertheless.
Personally, given that I consider software subscriptions to be the reincarnation of pure evil and thus avoid them whenever possible (in fact I have just cancelled my Adobe subscription), I opted for the perpetual license. Based on previous releases the perpetual license will give me at least 3-5 years of use until I have to purchase an update because it will stop working on new versions of macOS and Apple will drops support for the last one it still runs on. Which, in turn, is much cheaper than the subscription ($99 perpetual for 3-5 years vs. $237-$395 subscription for 3-5 years).
One thing to keep in mind though is that Parallels does have the ability to cut you off from using your perpetual license any time if they ever wish to do so by simply shutting down the activation service for that particular version. They never did so in the past, and there is absolutely no hint of evidence they ever intend to but it's something you should keep in mind nevertheless.
Personally, given that I consider software subscriptions to be the reincarnation of pure evil and thus avoid them whenever possible (in fact I have just cancelled my Adobe subscription), I opted for the perpetual license. Based on previous releases the perpetual license will give me at least 3-5 years of use until I have to purchase an update because it will stop working on new versions of macOS and Apple will drops support for the last one it still runs on. Which, in turn, is much cheaper than the subscription ($99 perpetual for 3-5 years vs. $237-$395 subscription for 3-5 years).
Last edited:
sracer
macrumors G4
I stopped using Parallels because I was tired of having to re-purchase it every year for each new version of OSX. Sounds like they've changed things to allow Parallels to support more than the current version of Mac OS. That's good.
russell_314
macrumors G3
That's what I have and so far no issues. I take that back I had some weird one second delay in audio when watching YouTube on a VM but that seems to have gone away.
[automerge]1589202651[/automerge]
Well I had to install my Parallels version 10 (I think) on Catalina to use the license upgrade key and it loaded and seemed to work but I only ran it for a short time to get the upgrade. Features like coherence might not have worked. I wish I took more time to test it out now.
A1MB1G
macrumors 6502
I did the subscription purchase but I'm starting to wonder what I'll do when it comes up for renewal at the end of this year. My experience in the past was that the perpetual license became useless every time Apple updated Mac OS, something would break and they'd have to issue an upgraded version of Parallels.
However, is there any truth that more recently that's no longer an issue? If I can be assured I'd get 3-5 years out of a perpetual license, that would make sense.
Like many others, I'm growing extremely fatigued with software subscriptions.
However, is there any truth that more recently that's no longer an issue? If I can be assured I'd get 3-5 years out of a perpetual license, that would make sense.
Like many others, I'm growing extremely fatigued with software subscriptions.
russell_314
macrumors G3
I'm not sure how you're doing your math when you say you need it to work for 3-5 years for it to make sense. To buy it outright is $100. If you rent it then you pay $80 a year. Renting it for 3-5 years is $270- $360. You get like remote access and maybe something extra if you rent vs buying it but I'm not paying extra for that.
You do realize on macOS unlike Windows you aren't required to install major updates when they come out. Right now I could still be on Mojave and get security updates.
A1MB1G
macrumors 6502
I can't recall when/how but I got a special rate on my subscription so I pay $79/yr but your point is well taken. I think at the end of this year, I'm going to simply go with the perpetual license and see how that goes. I do like installing the latest Mac OS updates, but suppose I could hold off on those upgrades at the time until I see what sort of an impact it has on the Parallels install and whether it would require an update.
Thanks for the feedback.
russell_314
macrumors G3
To be honest the subscription might be better but I'm a little bitter at Parallels. If there was an alternitive that did the same thing I would go with it. They went from charging a flat fee for I think five computers to now charging to rent their software per computer. I didn't mind paying upgrades for every few macOS updates because I knew the devs had to fix the software so it would work. It was a reasonable price but now it's just a money grab.
doobydoooby
macrumors 6502
Do you value the concurrence feature to such an extent that its worth paying each year? I never found the concurrence features very useful or that effective, they seemed to glitch sometimes, perhaps because I was using multiple displays. In any case, if this isn't a must-have feature for you, have a look at virtualbox as it's completely free and works really well as a window on your usual osx desktop. https://www.virtualbox.org/ I used parallels for quite a while but i was so careful to ensure that the security vulnerabilities in windows didnt get passed over to the mac workspace that i ended up using parallels as if it were a ringfenced virtual box. When i realised that, it seemed like a no brainer to just use virtualbox instead. I found there was sufficient integration between the two OS (copy/paste etc) to meet my needs. You can watch a ten minute youtube video to work out how to install windows (or many other OS) into it and then you are up and away. Doing the whole install probably took me fifteen minutes, no more. It's a nice halfway house between bootcamp's entirely separate environment and parallel's kinda-integration.
mj_
macrumors 68000
While I would agree with you in general that VirtualBox can be a decent alternative you also have to keep in mind that its performance on macOS is abysmal, especially on Retina Macs. It is blazingly fast an Linux and Windows hosts but for some reason the macOS version of VirtualBox is slow as molasses in January. In addition, there's a bug that prevents you from moving around a guest window under certain circumstances once the VirtualBox extensions inside the guest VM are loaded. You can move the window and the frame will move, but the contents will remain where they are on the screen. You have to hide and unhide the application in order for it to redraw and update. This bug has been around for at least three to four years with no fix in sight. Not a big deal but an annoyance nevertheless.
A1MB1G
macrumors 6502
Very interesting feedback guys. I never heard of virtual box until today. I only need parallels to run one app that I rely on for my business. Everything else I run is in Mac OS.
is the performance really that sluggish? Does it depend on the specs of the host machine? i just ordered a new MacBook Pro with i5 and 32GB of ram.
also, the resizing bug, that’s if I’m resizing the window in the windows app inside the virtual machine?
is the performance really that sluggish? Does it depend on the specs of the host machine? i just ordered a new MacBook Pro with i5 and 32GB of ram.
also, the resizing bug, that’s if I’m resizing the window in the windows app inside the virtual machine?
russell_314
macrumors G3
It's what makes Parallels usable. I can run macOS and Windows apps at the same time without having the Windows apps confined to a separate window. For example I can open an MS Word document in Windows on my Mac and it acts like it's running off macOS. I'm not trying to look at the Word doc inside a Windows window while I do other stuff on my Mac. Yes I know there is a version of Office that works on macOS and alternative office programs but I was just using that as an example. If I was just using a VM to test an OS or maybe learn it without having to install and cause boot problems then running it inside a VM window would be fine. This is where Parallels has a monopoly so they realized they can do whatever they want. Maybe one day someone will make a VM that competes and force Parallels to be competitive.
A1MB1G
macrumors 6502
since I really have only one app I use in the virtual machine, losing coherence mode wouldn’t be the end of the world since it’s just one app inside the virtual machine window that I could treat as if it’s just another open app on my Mac OS which I can use CMD-TAB to swap to when I need to use it.
I think coherence mode is way more important if you’re running multiple windows apps inside that virtual machine. Then I can see the benefits of it.
russell_314
macrumors G3
I can see if you have an app running all the time that isn't requiring you to go back and forth too much but I've done it the old way and I don't dislike Parallels enough to deal with that again. To me having the Windows start menu in the dock where I can just open apps and documents without having to tab into another window is worth it. Now maybe if I had a dual monitor setup with the VM full screen on one monitor where I could just mouse over? I don't know if that's even possible but I can see that working. I'm currently stuck with a single monitor.
mj_
macrumors 68000
You'll have to see for yourself whether or not it's too slow. I found it abysmally slow on my 2017 iMac and switched to Parallels a while ago. Running Windows 7, Windows 10 or anything even remotely graphically intensive (aka more so than the optimized 2D interface of Windows XP) would grind the VM to a screeching halt. On the flip side I do still run a Windows XP VM inside VirtualBox on my MacBook for Adobe Acrobat 9.5 that I use for scanning documents to this very day.
And the resizing bug is not for windows inside the VM but the actual VM window itself. Also, it's not resizing (which works great) but moving the VM window itself. It's been discussed on the VirtualBox forums over and over again and there is no bugfix. Been around at least since 2018, see among others here: https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=89784