Parallels Desktop for OS X Reviewed 300
phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica has put up a great review of the first full release of Parallels' virtualization software for OS X, Parallels Desktop 1.0. From the article: 'Move over emulation, virtualization is in and it's hotter than two Jessica Albas wresting the devil himself in a pit of molten steel. It's no contest, virtualization has it all: multiple operating systems running on the same machine at nearly the full speed of the host's processor with each system seamlessly networking with the next. Add to that the fact that it's cheaper than getting a new machine and you have the guaranteed latest craze. Not even the Hula Hoop can stop this one.'"
10+ years later... (Score:3, Interesting)
Parallels - the only time my Mac ever crashed (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a reprint from my Slashdot journal [slashdot.org]
Yes, I am joking. Parallels is awesome. The claims of "near native performance" are indeed correct - in my experience. Parallels is what allowed me to finally make the 'switch' because my office is tied heavily to Outlook (and Business Contact Manager and therefore SQL Server).
Parallels works as advertised and is recommended from one slashdotter to another.
Re:Parallels is Great (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm extremely interested in older legacy games... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wake me up when ... (Score:3, Interesting)
2005 called and wants their joke back.
Seriously though, people have been doing it since the first verrsion of 10.4 x86 was released to developers.
-Ed
Now do it without the root window! (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose you could do this with X by using SSH into the hosted *nix system and running OSX's X server, but I don't see how it could be done with Windows...
Re:10+ years later... (Score:3, Interesting)
Support for native NTFS partitions? (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone with an existing install of XP (Bootcamp), it seems like a shame to have to two copies of windows to be able to dual boot (primarily for games).
-c
Re:Parallels is Great (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:WOW! Factor (Score:2, Interesting)
I wish the X-server had better "change resolutions on the fly" capabilities (to handle going from full-screen to windowed mode), but I usually end up just displaying xterms from the Ubuntu virtual machine on my Mac OS X desktop anyway.
Re:Parallels is Great (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, I prefer using Bonjour in the guest instead of Samba, as it's just that much easier.
Same thing with Boot Camp (Score:3, Interesting)
-b.
Re:Parallels - the only time my Mac ever crashed (Score:3, Interesting)
Surfing the web: check
iTunes: check
Installing Opera browser: check
Installing Windows: check
If you want a PC, just get a PC.
And the Mac Mini prophecy is complete... (Score:3, Interesting)
Its potential for creating a dramatic increase in Mac converts should not be overlooked. To the point, I have a particular user (a CFO of a medium-sized manufacturing company) who spends most of her day working Excel spreadsheets, creating documents, emails and using a browser (webforms, webapps, browsing). It was a constant battle to keep her PC clean of virii and spyware. A perfect candidate for switching to a Mac, except for their base accounting system, which will only run in Windows. I got her a new Mac Mini Dlx, installed and configured Parallels with WinXP Pro and she could not be happier. She's running Mac:MS Office for Word, Entourage and Excel, uses Safari/FireFox for browsers (some of her sites won't behave on one or the other) and bounces into the other PCs on the network with COTVNC. And just a note to the non-consultant folks out there... It's always a very good thing to make the CFO happy.
One of the things I like most about Parallels is their "don't let Windows out of the box" approach. Coupled with an (admittedly similar to MS VPC) easy to backup set of files, should anything go wonky with the Windows install, it's a 2 minute job to restore it completely.
I can see this becoming a much more viable alternative to computer-savvy management level types.
Re:Parallels is Great (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I have parallels running (Score:2, Interesting)
What about Apple's Mac OS X license agreement, which specifically says it is only to be installed on Apple hardware? Appropriate that you should say "10.4.6". What, the Russian hackers that hack OS X for non-Apple hardware haven't gotten around to doing 10.4.7 yet? Are you comfortable running Mac OS X in an unsupported and un-updateable state with a modified kernel? Do you think Apple deserves any remuneration for the billions of dollars and countless manhours it's put into developing Mac OS X as a product?
My experience with stability... (Score:3, Interesting)
I installed Windows XP today and everything seems just fine and peppy. The IT guy who installed it commented that the installation took less time than on some of the Dells he worked with. My favorite part is the backup mechanism - I now have a fresh, no-spyware installation of Windows XP with Matlab, SPSS, and Access all installed. All of my documents will be stored on a Mac hard disk by a shared folder. So I went to the Finder and made a copy of the disk image, and when I want to revert to a fresh image, all I do is delete the working hard drive, and rename "image copy" to "image" and I'm back as good as new. 8)
I have one question for the forum - like many others, I wish there was native hardware acceleration. Wouldn't it be feasible by installing a Windows graphics driver that sends the hardware calls to Parallels, which then uses Mac native OpenGL to do hardware rendering? It doesn't seem that different from ordinary rendering in a window. This could be straightforward for PC OpenGL games, and for the DirectX games, perhaps the calls can be mapped to OpenGL functions. Perhaps with a speed penalty, but it should almost certainly be better than software rendering. You folks who know more about graphics rendering than I do - might this be possible?
Re:I have parallels running (Score:3, Interesting)
If Steve Jobs has any brains (and he does, being a nutjob does not preclude being smart) he will be well aware that OS X x86 will be hacked and "pirated" and he will in fact be relying on this to happen. Anybody with a hint of a clue knows that Microsoft rose to market dominance on the coat tails of geeks who have long been in the habit of "illegally" copying MS's various OS offerings, spreading the word and creating a *huge* install base for Microsoft to the exclusion of almost all their competition.
Steve Jobs knows that because he watched it happen.
He also knows that for each geek who makes the switch from Windows to MacOS there will be 10 non geeks looking on (friends + family) saying "oooooohh, whasat perty thing on your screen, Can I get that too?"
Of course a good percentage of the non geek "switchers" will also "pirate" the OS and put it on their existing machines but a lot won't too. This is because OSX *requires* at least an SSE2 capable CPU and if you want it to run even vaguely well you also need an reasonably equivalent video card to the ones used in the intel macs. There are many problems related to lack of proper video drivers in OSX, add to those a lack of ability to do any Auto Updates and all the other kludginess involved with running OSX on non Mac hardware and you can bet that most geeks will just say "sure you can" and point their relatives to www.apple.com for more info.
Successfully hacking an OS onto hardware that its not intended for is the very definition of geek nirvana. Supporting Uncle Ted when he attempts the same is another thing entirely.
I run OSX myself on my Athlon PC. Yes it is "pirated". I don't use it much though as I still prefer to boot into Ubuntu most of the time, I just have OSX installed "because I can" but I sure as hell wouldn't stick it on my sisters PC without expecting to get a phone call down the line along the lines of "my computer won't boot up anymore after I installed something. Do you think all my files are OK?"
No siree bob. My credo is, "if you can't figure out how to find, download and install it and ultimately fix it yourself, then you shouldn't be running it at all".
So, it's off to apple.com for you sis I'm afraid.
Parallels vs Rosetta. Which is faster? (Score:3, Interesting)
My best guess would be that the Windows version would be faster because despite the virtualisation layer, it's still an x86 binary. Might make for some painful choices until Adobe can complete their glacial move to universal binaries.
Re:Just wondering about Intel VT (Score:3, Interesting)
AMD's VT is codenamed pacifica, and as far as I know, no processors have actually launched with it yet, though it's due soon. I stand to be corrected on that point, all AMD's articles press releases say yet is 'due first half 2006'