Update? Upgrade? What's the difference?

I converted to Mac because of Intel and Boot camp. Then I discovered Parallels and have been very happy with it, and use it for my specific XP programs with all network (internet connections) turned off in XP so I don't have security issues.

No Boot Camp after all! I am enjoying my Mac even more than I thought I would.

But now we have Parallels 3. Since I bought my copy of Parallels in mid-April, I am wondering about the new version. Most every software vendor I have ever dealt with has a clear program for existing users getting a break on new product. Whether it is called an Upgrade or whatever.

From what I can tell on the board, there is a lot of confusion, and the general consensus is it doesn't matter how new your existing copy is, you pay full price for the new one.

Am I right? If so, I will sit on the old one, and for once resist the urge to Upgrade (I would DEFINATELY describe myself as an early adopter!). Since my entire involvement with XP is winding down over time, that actually makes sense.

But it just seems like an outfit like Parallels should be more enlightened than this.

If I am wrong, I apologize, but is the pricing policy as I have described? or have I missed something? If I am right, then maybe some of the other "Upgraders" out there should wait a while like I am. Other than games, and some business specific programs that some of us have to deal with, I can't think of much reason to pay full price for diminishing returns.

Just a thought, after reading many of the posts of the last week or so.

To repeat, if I am wrong, I apologize. How do I get credit for what I have spent?

Regards

 

Not true.

http://www.parallels.com/en/products/desktop/

If you have an existing version of the software, the upgrade is much less. In UKP the full version is £72.36. The upgrade is £27.83.

 

It seems that this whole situation is best explained in terms that Windows people can understand.

Let's start at Windows XP. You buy a computer that has XP on it or buy a retail copy of XP and install it on your PC. Microsoft releases all sorts of fixes and other enhancements for XP. You go to the WIndows Update screen, download the fixes and enhancements and install them on your copy of XP. Microsoft does not charge you for these. That is an update.

Microsoft then releases Vista. You cannot get Vista by going to Windows Update. You need to pay for a copy of Vista. That is an upgrade.

I don't know if Microsoft gives you any kind of discount on Vista because you already own a copy of XP. If they do, then you don't have to buy the fully priced copy of Vista. You can buy the upgrade priced Vista which will be less.

Parallels has done the same thing. Think of Parallels 2.5 as XP. Think of Parallels 3.0 as Vista. People who already had paid the full price for Parallels 2.5 or an earlier version were eligible for a discount on 3.0. If you don't own 2.5 or an earlier version then you are not eligible for the discount because you are not a previous customer. You have to pay the full price first and then you will be eligible for the upgrade price when the next major release happens.

This really isn't all that complicated is it?

 

The only flaw with that analogy is that Microsoft continues to support XP with patches and updates even after Vista came out. Parallels 2.5 is also build 3188, and 3.0 is build 4124. If you want any bug fixes to 2.5, you MUST upgrade to 3.0, which to many peple means paying. If Windows XP requires a Service Pack 3, it will be a free download to anyone who already owns XP. Is Parallels going to continue to support 2.5 for the people who don't want to upgrade to 3.0? (For example, fixing Coherence support?) I would be happy to stay with 2.5, as 3.0 offers nothing new, however Coherence still crashes in 2.5. To me, it's not exactly fair for Parallels to say "okay, we fixed that broken feature in 2.5, but it's only available in 3.0 - cough it up." If it was a new feature introduced in 3.0, they are justified in charging for it as a point release, but if it's a bug fix to an existing feature that did not work properly, it's not fair to charge for it.

 

You may want to check for Parallel's updates. The current version is 3212 which just came out and Parallels has stated that they will continue to support 2.5.

You don't have to pay anything to get 2.5.3212... it's an update.

 

I'll try this once I am able to reinstall 2.5 (3.0 trashed my Windows XP installation, so I have to attempt to repair that first.)

Thanks for the info, I am glad that they will continue support for 2.5

-Z

 

I'm currently running Tiger on my Mac. Apple provides updates for it from time to time. They provide them for free. In a short time though they will offer an upgrade called Leopard. For that I will pay. Now it might be that if I were to to buy a new Mac with Tiger just weeks before the release of Leopard, Apple may offer me a free upgrade, or perhaps a discount. They would do that to retain a happy customer. Since I've had my Mac for well over a year I don't expect a free upgrade to Leopard but I'd still be a happy customer if they provided it. I'd also think them damn foolish because I'm willing to pay for it.

That is, for me at least, and example of the difference between an update and an upgrade. There is a corollary with Parallels 2.5 and 3.0.

 

John talks about "windows people" as if they were different.

But actually, I have used an "update" (about 1/3 cost) copy of XP for 5 years now, moving from windows 2000. And months before Vista came out, people who bought XP machines were given a free update to Vista. Same with Office, and every widows app I have had. Same for Adobe, same for Symantic, etc, etc.

Lets forget about "windows people". We are all software consumers, and most software vendors out there have plans for this kind of situation. My experience does not discriminate as to Windows people versus Mac people, which is a tasteless distraction.

I am satisfied anyway, as I explained, and all I have to do is read the board to see how "happy" others are about the process of obtaining promised goods.

I simply wanted to know if I missed something, and darkone was the only actual response with a link that seems to indicate that the upgrade is $50. I'll sit on 2.5, for the reasons I cited, and because of what I am reading on the board.

PS... I did not mean my "Upgrade, Update" title to mean that was literally the question, and i wish I had chosen those words better. Obviously I know the difference. My implication was whether parallels was sensitve to how time of ownership affected the question.

 

The email that I received from Parallels included the following:

This exclusive offer expires June 6, 2007 and is available only to select Parallels customers. To learn more about the new Parallels Desktop 3.0 for Mac, click here.

If you had clicked on the link, then there would have been no need for your post because the question, that you now say you were asking, would have been answered.

Quote: "From what I can tell on the board, there is a lot of confusion, and the general consensus is it doesn't matter how new your existing copy is, you pay full price for the new one."

You're right... there is a lot of confusion on the board and a lot of it would not have occurred if people had just read the entire email and clicked on the link. You're wrong about the general consensus unless you mean the general consensus amongst people who didn't read the Parallels email in its entirety.

It's not the Windows people that are different... it's their experience with computing that's different. Windows users are accustomed to doing things in cumbersome and difficult ways. It takes a little time for them to get used to methods that don't demand a high tolerance for pain and frustration.

Lastly, you state; "Obviously I know the difference". This may be obvious to you but I don't think it is to anyone else given the title of your post. You do admit that you wish that you had chosen those words better and so I'll be nice and let you off the hook on that point.

 

You assume I got the aforementioned email, which I did not. perhaps I was not a selected parallels member ( I reviewed this before the response).

The irony of your "Windows" fixation is that this entire board is about people who are, or want to be 'Windows people" to some level, some to a very high level. Because I am (as i stated) trying to get off as much as possible, and see my windows involvement as a diminishing concern, Parallels is such a perfect fit for me.

Reading an entire email is like reading an entire post. On that we can agree.

I was reacting to the confusion I was seeing, and my real thoughts were that some who were being frustrated could hold back and let the issues settle out, since they may not need to do more with windows than they already are. That was my thinking, and I was putting that out. It was not my intention to make it so personal, nor to be profiled.

Regards