If you want games to work, read this before complaining....

Sorry about the rant here, but this is getting on my nerves... I'm usually much more friendly then this, but the sheer number of new posts here on the same topics are annoying.... I'm not singling anyone out, I wrote this up a few hours ago and only posted it now:

I see MANY posts of people that did not seem to read the release notes before they bought the 3.0 upgrade...

When I ordered the upgrade I read all the little notes below the buzzwords and noticed 2 things:

Parallels supports limited DirectX 8.1
Parallels supports OpenGL 1.5

Ok. DirectX 8.1 is at least 4 years old, and they only support part of it. They are installing a version of WINE on the VM's to change DirectX calls into OpenGL calls so that the Mac (which only handles openGL) can deal with it.

If you want your DirectX game to work in Parallels, go look up if it works in WINE. Considering they are using WINE sources it will probably be the same listing. WINE has been working since 1993 on getting DirectX working to talk with OpenGL. It is a hard problem.

If you want an OpenGL game to work then see what version of OpenGL it requires. If the game is more then 3 years old it might work.

Consider this... before Parallels 3.0, we had an emulated SVGA graphics card: 20 year old technology. We now have an emulated DirectX 7 (and part of 8) card: 10 year old technology.

We have moved up 10 years... but don't expect everything. Considering the technology they support it is amazing that any games at all that are recent run.

Please don't just show up on the forum and make posts that "my program that requires X does not work" when Parallels does not support X.

Parallels does support some games. They do not support all games. They never said they would support all games, and they even gave us a list of the small number of games that work.

 

When I saw that Parallels will have 3D graphics support, I have always wondered whether it can really support the more recent implementations such as DirectX 9 inside a Windows VM. Actually I don't expect Parallels 3 to support DirectX 9 and later and now my suspicion has been confirmed.

This means, in addition, that there will be no Aero if you use Windows Vista.

 

A list of supported OpenGL extensions:

Run on my XP VM...

Software from here.

Looks like open GL 1.2 is fully supported, nothing past that. I thought 1.5 was supported for some reason... I was wrong apparently...

EDIT: Oh... the actual hardware on a Macbook only supports up to OpenGL 1.4.... anyone care to run this test on a Macbook Pro or a Mac Pro and post the results?

 

It seems if the result of that report varies depending on your underlying hardware. Here's mine on a MacPro with GeForce 7300GT running a WinXP SP2 VM:

... followed by a list of features supported, and lots of reports that features have been added to the renderer's extensions list.

It looks as if everything up to and including version 2.0 is supported on this configuration.

 

There was no link to release notes in the emails (5 total) i got urging me to upgrade sooner rather then later to save 10 bucks. And what font size were those "little notes" in, 4?

What I saw in BIG BOLD LETTERS and several banners "Runs the Hottest 3D games on the Market", etc, etc, etc. You know the rest.

I'm very happy for you that you did your research. But many of us actualy believed (and trusted) the company.

Oh and the fact that it supports "limited DirectX 8.1" means what? 2 games? Has anyone gotten any 3D game to work? Any? And I mean working as in playable. Not just able to boot. But play. Any?

 

@unused_user_name

Kudos! The negativity has been getting to me, too. There seem to be a lot of folks who don't think it's important to read documentation, release notes, user guides (etc.) prior to jumping fresh into a complex topic like virtualization. Perhaps many aren't aware that it IS a complex topic?

You're correct about the 3D problem being a very tough one to solve. I'm surprised they've gotten as far as they have. Thx for the 411 on how Parallels is implementing 3D. I was curious as to their approach but hadn't yet dug around for the details. What I find interesting is that both Parallels and VMWare are using different techniques to implement 3D but both are stuck at partial DirectX 8 support. As you stated, we may be there for awhile, but it's a huge step forward from the frame buffer days.

 

@James Bond 007: Parallels state that Vista Aero support is planned for a maintenance release. I assume that means they expect to improve the DirectX to support version 9.

 

It will be interesting to find out how VMWARE deals with Direct. I have managed to get a number of programs working under VMWARE but not Parallels, including Zoo Tycoon, Toon Town and 3DMark2001. I did get Zoo Tycoon to work once in Parallels by changing focus but then I could not get it back if you lost focus. Both Parallels and VMWare seem to perform very differently with D3DIAG.

Parallels looks so close to working with DirectX that I am sure they will be working hard to fix the problems.

 

Yeah i got GalCiv to run under Fusion (though it wasn't great). i did not get Civ4 to run. But Civ4 is so demanding graphically. I might try getting Civ3 to run. That might actually work. And I'll probably try it with Parellels (the trail - expecting a refund so removed 3.0).

 

A big part of the problem is the marketing. The audience for virtualization software has traditionally been techie folks - people who spend a day or three poring over documentation, installing trial versions, etc. Many of us don't even read marketing collateral because it's often too superficial. The makeup of the audience changed very rapidly to include nontechnical users who are also new to virtualization, and I don't think Parallels was ready for it. Perhaps they should place a warning label on the ordering page. ;-)

Still, free trials are available and we've all been using software long enough to know that if support for something isn't explicitly stated then it probably doesn't work.

 

Civ3 runs well here, but it did in version 2.5, too. It's not very demanding, and can live quite happily with the software DirectX support in Parallels v2.

 

Not surprising given that they implement 3D in pretty different ways. It'd be interesting to see a list of which DirectX 8 subsets each package supports. The end result is that some 3D apps will work on one and not the other, depending upon which features they require.

 

I agree, which is why I kept my credit card in my pocket. Also, the pre-release info *did* say Vista Aero would not be supported first out. That was a big flashing light to say DirectX support is limited.

Then, if you looked at the only games they published videos for, and the only ones they listed, none of them were today's cutting edge AAA monsters. If they had evidence that a current high-frame-rate best-seller was supported, I think they'd have shouted it from the rooftops.

 

This is what I get on my MacBook Pro.

 

You are right but they should have been a little more exaustive with their advertising.

 

This is because the Macbook's GMA950 does not have all of the hardware support that the dedicated video cards such as a Geforce and Radeon series do.

The macbook's hardware capabilitys shader wise are very gimp in comparison. Intel's IGP has always been this way


Wine is a great head start on direct X support, but parallels is going to have to finish it up.

 

This information was not available for those of us who were offered the "pre-order". Most of us who pre-ordered did so based on Parallels' previous release experience. In a previous life what they said they would deliver is what they delivered. In this case, not so much.

 

DId parellels deliver everything on their first release?

No.

Now what was your point again?

For a lot of people it will seem as if they took the old release, clicked a checkbox and released it.

What they did was change a lot of internal workings.

Its much like windows Vista. It seems like all they added was a pretty new UI, but the inner workings of the OS have changed greatly.

 

Your post makes absolutely no sense. I realize your thoughts probably get mixed as you jump from thread to thread tirelessly defending a position that cannot be defended so let me clarify one more time.

I have no problem with where the developers are in implementing the technology roadmap. I have a problem with the company selling it as a final release when it clearly is not. I have a problem with paying for the 2.x version and then within a month and a half being asked to pay for an upgrade that does not deliver results according to the marketing poop. I have a problem with dishonest and deceptive business practices. My feelings are clearly aligned with the majority of users on this forum.

All businesses have a need to generate revenue and complete their products and services as soon as possible. However, it must be done with some honesty and integrity or ultimately the business will fail.

What they did... was piss a lot of people off.

 

All I have to say is I am glad I did not pre-order. While I have to admit I am very impressed with the performance improvements I am disappointed in the lack of more advanced 3D support. From all the advertising it really sounded like they were going to easily surpass VMWare in 3D performance; This is clearly not the case.

Now all this leaves me in a quandry while Parallels IMHO is a superior product on almost every other important isssue, I now need to weigh how important 3D performance is to me. I think what I may do is move over to Fusion until Parallels improves their 3D performance (as I am sure they will). Having Parallels Converter there where I know I can easily convert Fusion to Parallels is a big plus. Means I can come back to Parallels pretty easily.