Great product but the way the company sells it is abhorrent. Ransomware of the highest order and expensive too. No thanks!
Today sees the release of Parallels Desktop 11, the latest update to the PC virtualisation software which lets Mac users run Windows within OSX. It replaces Parallels Desktop 10, released in August 2014. Windows 10 is just out, and deeper integration with Microsoft’s latest OS is high on the list of new features. This extends …
You can always just use VirtualBox. Works great but lacks some of the comfort of Parallels. Keeps Parallels on their toes
I don't think Parallels is expensive considering the integration between the OSes it facilitates. I do grate at the yearly update notices and normally skip them and the speed promises piss me off: I remember running two Windows XP VMs next to each other on a MacBook with only 2GB of RAM, something I wouldn't dream of trying today. In the last ten years I've used Parallels, VM Ware and went back to Parallels – VM Ware was much worse when it came to updates. They're already trailing that a new version will be needed for El Capitan, but I will be able to upgrade with the version I already have. Don't know whether this is them just milking the market or down to Apple changing the API.
I can see the Pro version being very popular if it makes working with Docker, et al. easy.
VM Ware was much worse when it came to updates. They're already trailing that a new version will be needed for El Capitan
VMware says Fusion 7 already runs El Capitan today, but it’s not considered a ‘supported’ version. This seems to be the case: I'm running it under the El Capitan Public Beta and it seems to work. Not that I'm doing anything terribly stressful to it. I suppose that, if I were, and if it broke, I would not be able to get support. (In particular, I've not tried Windows 10 on it: Windows 7 is fine for what I want.)
Turning things upside down, VMware Fusion 7 on OS X Yosemite supports El Capitan VMs — although, again, I have not tried doing anything too ambitious from inside one.
I've been running Windows 10 under El Capitan with Parallels 10 without any apparent problems, so I'd hope it doesn't magically "break" when the full version of El Capitan ships.
With previous OSX releases I usually found that Parallels wouldn't work, once because of an API change that fundementally broke it, but mostly because something moved or permissions changed - in which case there were often work-arounds.
It's a virtualisation platform. Different.
Windows hasn't needed to run on an emulator on a Mac since Apple switched to Intel CPUs.
An emulator reproduces a computer architecture in software, virtualisation provides an isolated address space and resource management for an operating system running natively on the hardware.
It seems that more and more companies are getting on to this bandwagon.
I guess in a few years the prospect of more than a few lawsuits flying their way towards a few vendors for actually stopping users getting at their data will become commonplace.
This is all a tad shortsighted methinks but probably dictated by the demands of shareholders for ever increasing profits.
It that don't get people moving towards FOSS then nothing will.
A sign of the times I suppose.
Thus far Windows 10 operates inside of parallels 10 just fine. I don't think having Cortana is a huge plus. I'm not sure if there is a compelling reason to upgrade. One problem I do see is the way that they handled Access, it is now requiring the pro version. I'm not sure I'm liking the idea of spending $19.95 a year in order to be able to spend more money for the pro. while the upgrade to both versions is the same price this year, what is it going to be next year? I'm fully in favor of profit where, ransom where gives me some heartburn though.
I think I'm going to avoid being in a hurry on upgrading. I want to see how well it works for others, and if it's claims are actually true.
I'm not sure this is Update e is worth the money. Windows 10 is working pretty well under Parallels 10. I don't think Cortana is such a huge plus that it justifies the upgrade cost. There are some negatives such as how they handle Access. The pro version is now required to use it. I'm not sure the value of $20 so you can upgrade to pro is worth it. Over the last couple of upgrades the company has started nickel and diming uses. That type of business practice makes me worry about the financial future of the company. I used to skip releases but lately have been upgrading yearly. I may go back to yearly upgrades or at least wait until it breaks.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019