What Parallels Needs to Keep Me as a Customer

Without Parallels, I would not be on a Mac again as my main machine. For the last 5 years we've owned Macs in the house and used them for servers and other stuff in the house, but I had to use a PC for my main machine for Windows Mobile development.

However there are a few issues for me and they have to do with speed. Parallels 1892 seemed to be the best build ever for me and right now I would like to go back. The main reason is speed.

With every build *after* 1892, I have found that with the cache policy set to VM, the VM screams, but OS X is so slow even with 1.2GB of free RAM (I have 800MB allocated to Parallels) that trying to respond to an email is as slow as molasses. With the cache policy set to OS X, OS X is good (mostly), but the VM disk access is very slow. When I'm compiling apps, its twice as slow. Using 1892 it was a perfect balance.

So that said, I'm looking at VMWare Fusion and while I prefer Parallels hypervisor and all that (I don't give a care about Cocoa vs QT because the UI is almost never used - I run the VM) there are a few things Parallels needs to keep me as a customer.

1) Speed. I need better disk speed.

OK, that's it really. Yes, USB2 would be nice, but I rarely use that so for me its no big deal. Disk speed is what I need. Now I feel Parallels could fix this by allowing us to tweak the cache policy even more perhaps using a slider or something or even better - direct disk access. I feel that this may solve both issues. Let me partition my drive and put my Windows data on a real disk. Then no cache policy and no virtual disks to deal with.

The first VM to give me that in a reliable app will have my future money.

 

akac,

We are working on both performance and USB 2.0 - keep an eye on the updates and new versions!

 

I'll predict right now that the build 2000 will have USB 2.0 and better playthrough so you can burn CDs in the VM. “Especially if their competition already has those features in their beta software.”

COME ON PARALLELS, DON'T MAKE A LIAR OUT OF ME!!!

 

Thanks Andrew. On performance - are you specifically looking at using partitions on disk? This is my main desire so OS X is not messing with the VM files in any way. I want raw disk access. I have no desire for the Bootcamp usage or anything like that. I simply want fast disk access. Is this in the 2.x or 3.x release we're looking at?

As you know, compiling software is disk intensive. I use VS 2005 to compile stuff and all I want is fast compilation

 

i agree, 1892 was a good build.

however, i use 1966 on a macbook pro, 2gb ram, use windows server 2003 as the OS (800mb) with sql server 2000/2005 and visual studio 2005. Compiling is not all that slow with my projects nor is os x slow in the slightest. however i did have a spate of server 2003 BSOD'ing on me for a day or so as well as no boots after an upgrade, its working fine again now, no idea why. I use the virtual machine to develop 8-10 hours a day.

i think running compressor helped a lot.... hopefully it stays solid, its been a few days without problems.

 

I hope Parallels is making headway with giving full support to Garmin GPS products like the ForeRunner 205. These are USB devices and they don't work with Parallels but works perfectly fine with Boot Camp.

 

Like I said in another thread -- maybe Garmin should be working on Mac or Parallels compatibility rather than spending precious resources trying to hack away at Garmin's weird USB implementation.

 

I am still waiting for a disk tools like implimentation for Linux VMs. I have noticed that mouse and keyboard speed is much faster now since the last few builds ten when I started using Parallels (back in June.), but I would love to see more improvments.
I realize a large portion of users are using parallels for windows compatibility, but alot of us are using it to test and review different Linux distros as theycome availible.

Either way, you guys have me as a customer, and I apreciate all the hard work I have seen going into this product. As impressive as VMware looks right now, I wont be bothered with it (especialy after spending my money on Parallels).

 

I agree. ESPECIALLY after Andrew @ Parallels PROMISED us that USB 2.0 and better playthrough is coming.

BTW, I assuming that better playthrough means the capability to burn CDs in our VMs as joem is always talking about.

 

What I'd love to see is for Parallels to beable to run using the bootcamp partition. That would be the best of both worlds.

When I need max windows performance I reboot to bootcamp. When I just need to run programs I run the VM. In either case I'd have access to the same programs and files.

If you need to run Windows nothing would be better than that.

 

I just posted on another thread complaining about C2D performance compared to friend's CD machine. However, she installed Parallels months ago (I don't know which build) so maybe it's a build problem. My new C2D is running like a dog. Fix it soon please Parallels.

 

I don't want them to waste time on that. Get Parallels itself working fast. For Parallels to do work with Bootcamp partitions would require Parallels to deal with all the driver changes and not only that - probably license issues. The fact is it probably would not work well - not because of Parallels, but because of Windows.

 

Yes, they promised that USB2 is coming in the next major release. I've ready every thread on this and they never promised it as part of a free upgrade to 2.x but as part of the next major release which is 3.0 from what I understand.

My request are simple - speed things up in Parallels (since 1892 or whatever that build was was really good) - and let me use a native partition instead of the virtual disks. I feel that this is something that could be done as part of 2.x without taking away from the 3.0 major features like USB2.0 support.

 

Forget 2.0 how about USB 1.1 Support!

I haven't had one USB device I've tried to connect to parallels work. Nokia E61, Palm & Card reader: none of them work. And I'm far from alone, a search of the boards here will show that this is one of the (if not the single) most registered complaints. Come on guys lets get the basics right before we start trying to support 2.0!

 

NO!!!!!! If Parallels thinks that I will shall out more money to them just to gain STANDARD computer features like USB 2.0 and better playthrough so I can burn CDs in my VM, they have another thing coming. Then I WILL become a VMWare customer, because that's BS!

However I have confidence in Parallels to do the right thing.

 

Frankly in my experience Parallels is CHEAP software for what it allows you to do. If you want to jet on over to VMWare be my guest. I purchased several licenses to VMWare at costs of around $170 or so all of which fell out of "support" and required paid updates.

So far Parallels is updating this stuff for free and it just keeps getting better in my opinion. I personally have no problem with a small upgrade fee to 3.x.

I say it again... Parallels allows me to do things on my Mac I never dreamed of. I get the benefits of an OS based on Unix with a killer Mac GUI and yet I can still have WinXP operating at near native speed. How cool is that!?

So go Parallels! Wow us with more features. There are some of us that will gladly pay a small upgrade fee as long as the new feature set is worth it. I know the flames will come for this because everyone wants something cheap. But when you think about it, Parallels costs less than you can buy a real licensed WinXP pro for.

Granted there are "sources" selling them cheap now but for a while $90 was the min for XP pro with SP2. I think I've seen them for $45 in a few places. But Parallels when it first came out was $49.95. I bought two licenses at this price.

Mark

 

Good for you Mark.

How about giving people like me who can't afford it, $80 so they just can have the standard computer features?

IF I can scrape up $170 or however expensive it is for VMWare, I know that it's only a one-time fee to get the standard computer features.

 

What makes you think it will be $80 for the upgrade if they do charge?

Also I seriously doubt VMWare fusion will be $170... I just have a gut feel it will be somewhat more. I hope I'm wrong. I hope they target it at Parallels and it makes both products remain competitive.

I'm just saying that when you compare Apples to Oranges Parallels is pretty cheap. Look at buying a copy of Photoshop these days! Or Final cut pro. We are talking HUNDREDs of dollars.

Mark

 

Right thing? Which is? Stevamundo, you really need to take a chill pill. Nowhere at all did Parallels ever say that 2.x would support USB 2.0. Nor did they say that it would burn CDs in the Virtual Machine. If you can find anywhere where they promised these features for this current 2.x codeline, then I'm with you. Otherwise, it's simply your imagination.

Parallels is an emulator. Parallels is not a computer. If you don't know the difference, you shouldn't be using the software. If you need all those hardware requirements, you should be running a Windows box instead of a Mac. Pure and simple.

You really need to reset your expectations here. Give it a rest. Frankly, Parallels is a bargain for what it does. But if you can't see that, by all means, become a VMWare customer.

From what we've seen here, the Parallels team is working their butts off improving the product. From my own personal opinion, they don't deserve your constant whining about USB 2.0.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

If Parallels charges about $25 for this update, I will have no problem with that. Just don't charge me another $80 just for the standard features.

BTW hhwong, it's my understanding that the VMWare already has in its beta software USB 2.0 and the capability to burn CDs in its VM. So don't be whining to me about my unrealistic expectations when this technology is already here.