Not sure how this would be different from VPC regarding how it will actually manage the other OSes installed on the system. I tend to agree with bentoms - currently VPC actually launches a complete virtual computer, and although you can install Linux and older versions of Windows on it, M$ only officially supports WinXP. Also, the more virtual computers you launch (say I want to run WinXP and Linux side-by-side in VPC) the s l o w e r VPC gets.
Now, if Parallels' "virtual PC" does indeed translate hardware calls in a similar fashion as Rosetta - well, then this might open up the possibility to launch individual non-native OS X applications without launching an entire operating system to accompany them. There would be a memory savings over M$' VPC, and a speed boost as well (since new Macs are on Intel, and presumably there isn't a lot of translating to do). You could then run Access in a window just like iCal runs in a window on your desktop. You might not then need to actually own a copy of Windows to run Win apps - just the individual applications - though this might be a flight of fancy, since M$ will never provide all the hooks necessary without reverse engineering for their own applications.
Although, I also wonder how much functionality it will have: will it enable cut-and-paste, printer connections, USB, and so forth? VPC, despite its many shortcomings, is moderately robust regarding how much back and forth you can do between the Windows window and OS X. I hope that Parellels has enough foresight to match the features VPC offers at launch of its product.
I could see a number of companies getting back into the virtualization game depending on how easy it is to make Windows and other OS programs work on Intel OS X. Although, M$'s new version of VPC (if it's more than vaporware right now) would still be the best to run M$ programs.
Looking forward to seeing this - they've at least tried to throw down a gauntlet by getting their product out of the gate first. If it works well, it will at least show the potential of running Windows apps on an Intel Mac to many folks, and hopefully push Mac sales.
If this area develops, I'd definitely consider an Intel iMac for our nonprofit to run Blackbaud's software with our next database purchase. Otherwise, we'd need to run Blackbaud's stuff on a Windows server, which I'm much less thrilled about.