Mac Product Should be in APLHA Stage

Whether or not this software is "beta" in arbitrary terms is besides the point. There is a very real, quite pent-up demand for the exact functionality that Parallels is offering. Rather than let a competing product get the heads up on them, they publicly released as soon as it was moderately safe to run.

For a company new to the Mac community, these guys have an impressive grasp on what it takes to be a developer for Mac users. The app is mind-numbingly simple and they 'get' that the Mac userbase is an early adopting one. They will find out that it is also a very loyal community. Kudos guys, and good luck even tho you don't need it.

 

I agree with brent. I never heard of Parallels before the Mac version announcement, but after using the beta I'm hooked. The speed... oh god, the speed is so vastly close to native environment that I can't even think of running emulated environment like QEMU anymore. That alone is enough for me to hang on despite the lack of USB or, before the current beta, sound. With each beta I feel like getting a free gift.

 

I agree completely with all. I think making it Beta was reasonable... bigger user base to test and find errors and they have been very responsive to finding and fixing those errors. Unfortunately for most of us this is EXACTLY what we have been waiting for an OS X product that can run Windows, as fast as windows would run if started alone.

For me it's ideal... when it gets stable enough to not corrupt what I work on. So I will pre-order and hope for the best. I think they will conquer the bugs. The one that scares me the most are the kernal panics... I can certainly live with no sound or a video that isn't totally smooth. But a reliable no crash OS is most important. It's the main reason I'm on OS X rather than Win XP (which I must develope for).

Mark

 

Like to say just as the others here have said. Very nice to have access to this program. I have found 2 programs that will cause kernel panics (OSXvnc if loaded after Parallels is running and CyTV.) So since I stopped running CyTV (CyTV is like Slingbox for EyeTV.) and load OSXvnc before hand, beta 3 has become very stable. I have sent the panic reports on to the Parallels team so that they might be able to work out the bugs with these apps.

But I too have been able to get things done. I do real estate and can now conduct my RE business on the Mac with out having to rely on a PC. Most all Real Estate web apps require Windoze to run (MLS, Top Producer and Paragon.) So nice to be able to be all Mac. I did run a dedicated PC and VNC'd to it, but the screen refreshes where not good (more about that in a sec.)

b2 was faster at loading. b3 is just a tad slower. But what is really amazing is how fast IE over Safari. I have also tested AutoCAD (trial version), CorelDRAW 12, Adobe Photoshop and Acrobat professional. All run well, plus I have 1518 fonts loaded into my VM!! Just running with 256MB RAM and very surprised at the performance. And to top it off, I connect to my iMac from my Dual G5 via Chicken of the VNC and can control the Win2K VM from this system. I have a GIGa bit hub that these two systems talk through, so screen refresh is good! So it the iMac totally dies from a crash I still have my other system. Also can connect directly with the Win 2k VM through VNC Dimensions on the Mac. Doing it this way the iMac screen stays off while working on the VM system. The screen refreshes are not as good as they are with Chicken of the VNC, plus Thumb wheel scrolling works in Chicken of the VNC, where it does not in VNC Dimensions. VNC connections directly to Windows with Chicken of the VNC don't work well at all, but Mac to Mac it is excellent. I use my iMac more as a TV and its in my family room, but bought is so I could have access to the new Intel architecture. PC to PC using Tight VNC works very well and you have lots of options like running the screen at certain percentages of screen size.

Hope all this info helps others that would like connect remotely to there systems, even if it just same room!

 

>>> Message has been deleted by the user <<<

 

Continuing on the Google beta notion ... One big problem is that a lot of people use Google script kiddie type betas, which even at their worst can't do much harm. Anybody who is using beta software that is largely based on kernal extensions and doesn't expect to have issues that *can* be catastrophic is being naieve. A Beta for the latest google web widget is a far cry from a beta for a hypervisor virtualization solution.

 

There are some release software out there that are about on par on stability as beta1 of PW for OS X... and you wait for the devs to come out with version 1.01. Hehe.

 

This is very good piece of software, which I find good enough to be called a beta. Please keep in mind that running Windows in a Virtual machine on a MAC was just a dream just a few months ago. For sure, there are still issues to be resolved, but I am glad the author released the program to the public for testing.

 

I've been developing bio-medical and industrial control applications for 22 years. The names, "alpha", "beta", "pilot", "pre-release" are all what the company desires to make of them.

Would it have been appropriate for Parallels to release this code as "alpha" to a mass market for further testing? Absolutely. They have been COMPLETELY up front about what you can expect from the software. They have never billed it as a "stable, finished product."

The fact that they choose to call it "Beta" is by their own design. Some may say it's a marketing ploy to make the software seem more finished than it is. Frankly, it does look very polished in many ways, I.E. the user interface is nicely done. So I can totally seem them calling it a Beta.

Regardless is there anyone here that thinks a "Final Release... V1.0.0" of any product is bug free? If you do then you live in a fantasy world. In the world of technically complex operating systems and in my company's case technically complex pieces of software that have to interact with robots, motors, pumps and rely up on firmware, the idea of a bug free application is almost laughable.

What most companies like mine do is to make the final release V1.0.0 as stable as possible for the intended mission and once the customers begin to use that product we have a period of "post release" fixes that address critical problems as they are found.

What this means to me is that the day we all receive our "purchased" copies of the release version of Parallels I expect we will still see reports in this forum of kernel panics and sound not working, and perhaps even a corruption condition. I hope I'm dead wrong, but the problem is really that there are so many variations of hardware, firmware, guest OS's that to handle every possible condition is a monumental effort.

Personally I think Parallels is doing a very nice job so far. I just hope it will soon get to a stability point that I feel safe putting it on a MacBook Pro and depending up on it at a client site. Unfortunately I cannot afford one single OS corruption when working at a client site. So I will wait before I go that route. But I have pre-ordered my copy.

I plan to test extensively on my Mini Duo Core and see just how stable it gets.

Mark