RC1 jumping the gun a bit?

You aren't switching mental programming for Parallels, you are switching it for WINDOWS. You are correct that Parallels is an application. What it does, is allow you to run a different OS on your machine and switch back and forth. While you are interacting with WINDOWS, you are NOT RUNNING A MAC, you are running Windows, and a mental gearshift is REQUIRED because...

Windows is NOT Mac, and Mac is NOT Windows

If you go to someome else's house, you shouldn't expect your keys to work in their locks or your user ID and password to work in their computer. You shouldn't expect Mac keystrokes to work in Windows either, any more than you would expect Windows key combinations to work in OSX. They are different, and that reality isn't going to go away no matter how much you or I would like it to.

Control-click is a valid input to Windows, and making it do what it does in a Mac precludes using Windows features and is a really, really bad idea.

 

Unless lots of users request it, in which case it is an essential feature. If you want a pure windows environment, get a PC, or boot into XP.

 

Just because lots of people request it does NOT mean it's the right thing to do. This is a "flat earth" argument. Sometimes it's just better to educate people why it's a bad idea.
David Jameson

 

On the contrary: you are the one being narrow-minded and insisting that people do things the one True Windows way. For people who spend most of their time in OS X, it really is better to have Mac keyboard commands available. Also, Parallels is not a charitable organization, they will tune their product to meet market demands. If you would like to "educate" people on why they should use a less efficient workflow, be my guest, but don't try to suggest that users who want an easier solution are asking for a "bad idea" to be implemented.

 

It has nothing to do with the "one true Windows way". If you are driving a car in the US, you drive on the right. In the U.K. you drive on the left whether you are used to it or not. Even if you feel that your learned habits make your "drive flow" more efficient on the right, you drive on the left anyway or get into an accident or get a ticket. "I've been doing it that way for years and I think it's better." won't impress a judge.

This isn't being narrow minded. It's being practical.

The Mac way is the one true way for a Mac because that's the way it works and you don't have a choice. The Windows way is the one true way in Windows because you don't have a choice.

To use a modern computer, you need a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. To use a Windows computer, you need a two button mouse because that's what the OS is designed for. The MAc way with its one button mouse is different, but not better. One button is enough on a Mac (although I find a two button wheel mouse more convenient on a Mac myself) but it isn't in Windows, no matter how much someone would like it to be.

Just use bootcamp is a specious argument. The point of Parallels is to RUN WINDOWS (or another guest) AS IF IT WERE RUNNING ON THE HARDWARE. That's what virtualization is all about, and asking for Mac functions to work in windows is bastardizing the conccept.

It isn't conceptually a Mac application, it's a virtual WINDOWS environment with all the pluses and minuses of Windows.

If you want a Mac environment, stay in OSX. If you want a Windows environment, run Windows as a guest.

 

Car? Judge? This is all complete nonsense. The reason most people ran VIrtual PC for Mac, and the reason most people will use Parallels, is to get access to that one Windows app that they need. For my part, it has nothing to do with learning to use Windows correctly. Most of us also have to use PCs on a regular basis!

Keep in mind that you're the one using words like "bastardize." The rest of us are just trying to get some work done.

 

You do realize that the reason Parallels changed the behaviour was ALSO due to lots of user request?

What if I want a pure Windows environment WITHOUT getting a separate PC (oh, I have several) or using Boot Camp? I really detest the whole dual-booting concept (and this, coming from a person who made a small fortune developing a multi-booting software!), and though I do have a KVM switch hooking up both this Mac mini and an Athlon 64 X2 system I built, I'd much prefer to just work within OS X and have Windows running as an app (i.e. in a VM) instead of switching back and forth in a cumbersome way just to do something that only works in Windows. I expect THAT Windows to work exactly like Windows in a standalone environment. The fact that ctrl-click didn't work as intended the Windows way was hindering me from the proverbial 'getting some work done'.

This is why I fully support the idea of giving choices to the user instead of fixating on a certain ideal. Personally, I would've preferred if Parallels got this 'right' (my way, mwahaha ) from the start so peeps got used to the idea, but I guess it would've popped up anyway. Some people simply want to have the apps accessible by the means of the VM and have the usual OS X keyboard behaviour carried over as much as possible (like you). Some people want 'the complete Windows experience' inside the VM (like me). We know that Parallels can be programmed to go both ways. Now is the time the developers give us the choices so that both sides can be happy.

Incidentally, thinking like the former is a bit like trying to emulate what Darwine / CrossOver is eventually going to bring - using Windows apps without the actual Windows OS underpinning.

Frankly, it's quite funny that we can be so passionate about what may be just a simple key combo. Makes you think, no?

 

I should say again that my standard for a product like this is VIrtual PC (originally created by Connectix, and now owned by Microsoft). They did offer a control click option, but it was on be default, and continues to be (yes, this is a feature supported by the company that owns the sacred Windows.)

Incidentally. if we're supposed to have a pure environment, then how do you defend mouse integration?

 

I guess we disagree on what complete nonsense means, but thanks for the flame -- it's been a while.

I'm sure you've done surveys so you know what "most people" want, and I guess you'd really like so much to have things your way that you're willing to jam your one true way down the rest of our throats, but I really wan't want Mac conventions getting in my way when I use Windows. I, as I'm sure many folks even if not "most", really need to use Windows as Windows and not a half Win half Mac bastardization (and yes, the label fits). If I can't control-click inside of Windows, I can't "get work done", and I'm not willing to sacrifice either the Windows or the Mac environment's functionality to satisfy the emotional needs of a one true way partisan. I need both, and control-click in Windows should NEVER bring up a menu Mac style, and should ALWAYS bring up a menu Mac style in an OSX app.

I do have to use a PC on a regular basis, and I'm trying to do it emulated on a Mac, which should behave exactly like a Mac in OSX and exactly like a PC in Windows regardless of your distaste for the distinction, or belief that the Mac way is "better" or more familiar.

I think the car example was a good one as a reductio ad absurdum example to illustrate my point. You are, of course, free to disagree, but I think we've probably expressed our views now, and continuing this dialog isn't going to help the Parallesl team develop a better product.

The suggestion for user choice of behavior seems like a good one to me. Then we can all have it our way.

 

I agree that we've largely worked this through and made our positions known, but I'd rather you not distort my position. Parallels is a Mac application, and should behave as one.

My feelings about which keyboard command behaviors are better on their own terms are irrelevant to the topic. The point here is that when you're using a mac, you shouldn't have the completely change your mindset, and, in the case of a laptop, look for hardware that doesn't exist, just to bring up a contextual menu.

Agreed.

 

I don't see the big deal here. They responded to user requests. That's good. We responded to the changes negatively. They responded again with a good solution. If they get the USB problem sorted this quickly, I will be quite happy. Overall, Parallels has been generally quite responsive.

 

This, I think, is the crux of the difference in viewpoints. Parallels is, indeed, a Mac application and should behave as one when interacting with a Parallels window or with the app itself.

When interacting with the guest OS, it *IS* the guest OS and should NOT behave as a Mac application, but should behave *exactly* (to the extent possible) like the guest.

Some folks just want the ability to run a Windows app on a Mac and wold be happiest if it were a Mac application, and the more Mac-like it works, the better.

Some of us *need* to test software in a Windows environment, and the very last thing we want is a difference between the virtual guest environment and the native guest environment. This is what virtualization is all about. In Windows, for example, ctrl-right click, and ctrl-left click are both valid inputs to some Windows apps, and MUST be available to use / test those apps. Making ctrl-left click act as a right click makes it impossible to use those apps and makes the VM useless for that purpose. The VM isn't a Mac app, it's a guest OS.

So a configuration option to "Make the VM look exactly like the guest" or "Make the VM as Mac like as possible" is probably the only way to make both groups happy.

 

Isn't the solution that it be easily configurable to run like a Mac or a Windows environment, developed due to our feedback, an ideal one? I really think it renders this debate moot as Parallels intends to make both camps happy.

 

I'm with joem here. I'm not buying Parallels so I can hav a Mac-ified Windows machine running in the background. I am buying it because I want the ability to run a full-fledged Windows machine side-by-side with my full-fledged Mac machine. (Oh, yes, and Linux too.)

I'm basically looking for a virtual KVM switch, and that's it. When I'm in Windows I do not want anything reminding me I'm still on a Mac---save the fact that with one key combination I can switch back; and perhaps the fact that I still hear the chime when email arrives...

My reasons for wanting this are sound, but they are my business---and anyone telling me I ought not want it this way can go suck an egg. (Not that any of you are, I'm just warnin' )

I fully respect the fact that other people will want things to behave differently, but that's why I am very pleased to hear that Parallels is working on making things configurable. Because frankly, if Parallels went "fully Mac" and VMWare came out with a "fully Windows" virtual machine, I'll be heading over there in short order.

Even the ability to cut and paste between environments is, for me, a bonus (but believe me, now that I have it, I wouldn't want to go back).

 

Good debate here, I think the reailty is that everyone can actually be appeased by simply going the route of presets that mimic specific user needs along with the ability to customize the environment as needed. Options are a blessing not a curse. I think the Parallels dev team is paying attention to all of these requests and are doing a damn fine job of trying to please a wide range of needs, and hopefully RC2 will incorporate these suggestions.
Personally I think the push really needs to be for Apple to get on the ball and offer the virtual right click support for the 15in MBP as they have for the 17in MBP. How about taking all of this feedback energy and directing it at Apple with some sort of mass feature request push. Anyone have any good ideas on how to do that where it would actually get their attention.

-J

 

Great responses, all. Truly not intending not to sound as if I'm on a "soap box", I'd like to offer my $.02.

1) Reiterating the vast majority of users to Parallels - ***** (that's 5 stars) to the Parallels development team for your outstanding efforts. Your efforts are GREATLY appreciated, particularly by those of us who have burned the midnight oil in support of releases to support the general communities' needs.

2) USB support - Recognising there's no universal USB support (1.1 or 2.0) to our users, I would (selfishly) focus on external USB drives and GPS/serial. Again, selfishly-motivated, but support for Garmin / Magellan USB to a universally-acceptable level (i.e., that which is not specific to
Garmin / Magellan) would be a huge step forward for the product.

In general, my ***** from a cynic for an OUTSTANDING effort by the Parallel team, who is no doubt b burning the proverbial candle at both ends for its efforts. Generally-speaking, your product is exceptional - especially with respect to typical product release cycles - and the majority of your consumer base is appreciative of your efforts and output on this project.

 

Totally disagree. The WHOLE point of Parallels is to allow me to run windows from os x without having to reboot my computer or using a 2nd computer. Note: I said "RUN WINDOWS" which means I need and expect windows to act like windows.

Having windows act like OS X is counterproductive for people who are using windows to get specific work done. If I didn't need windows to act like windows, why would I be using it at all?

When I'm in the parallels window running my windows vm, it needs to act like windows. When I'm back over the OS X desktop, it needs to act like OS X.

Cheers.

 

Huh, I didn't notice that. Thanks for that tip!

 

Agree 100%. I am looking for Parallels to provide multiple PC's in one box - sort of a one box network if you will. I do NOT want OS X intruding into my other PC environments and vice versa.