For example: most mac's have 1) Ethernet 2) Airport/Wireless 3) Firewire 4) (Optional) Bluetooth SImultaneous Operation is much perferred for me as opposed to auto-switching between a single connection.
Agree: Multiple Nics very useful In my case, work uses ethernet only for security reasons. At home, I use a wireless network. So, I have to turn off my WinXP VM whenever I go to either location, change the nic, and then boot up again. If the system just had: 1) ethernet 2) airport I would bet that 99% of all users would never have to reboot their VM. I seriously doubt BT or Firewire networking is used my many Mac owners. Also, just leaving both Ethernet and Airport on at all times would suffice. I believe WinXP can determine which NIC has the connectivity. Thanks, --Nate Pre-order already committed. This is a great piece of software. It runs faster than my AMD Sempron laptop.
I would like the ability to enable both host-only and bridged ethernet. I do a lot of Windows Server testing and I have been using VirtualPC and Virtual Server on a PC which both allow for multiple NICs of different formats. This allows me to test a firewall type of configuration with a private and public connection. Thanks, John
Agree. Parallels should be able to work out which is the active network (on Mac, airport, wired, bluetooth, fw, etc) and if not, allow switching without shutting down the VM and rebooting. Better yet, just expose all the network connections and let the client OS choose among them.
I am the same way. I use ethernet at work and wifi at home and it is not enjoyable to have to shut down the vm when changing locations. The other problem I have is not solved so easily as simply allowing two nics. The time tracking software we use at work requires IE which is the biggest reason I run Parellels. When I am on the go I use my phone as a BT modem to connect, but there is no way for me to use IE when I do this. It would be nice if Parellels supported a NAT'ed interface so it could share any Internet connectivity my laptop had. I suppose I may be able to make this work by using OS X internet sharing ability combined with host only networking. Who knowes. Thanks Ben
What would be much cooler for the people who run stuff that needs multiple interfaces would be to use the underlying functionality of the MAC OS (or linux/windows) to be able to bridge a virtual interface to a Vlan interface in the underlying operating system. And then a functionality to add multiple interfaces. That would mimic some of the functionality found in Vmware and would be a great improvement in functionality and usability for Parallels. Thanks, Lasse,
When someome who knows, has nothing else to do and can't sleep, I'd love to see an exxplanation of why there is only one NIC and one USB port available. Several of each, especially USB ports seems like such a no-brainer, I really wonder why it was left out. And of course, fixing that oversight (IMO anyway) is fairly high on my priority list, right behind FULL USB access on a device by device basis -- just send all the bits in both directions. Why is this so hard? Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks. Would it be possible to extend this request to provide the concept of a virtual LAN between the VMs please? I'm thinking of the possibility of running two Linux VMs, one as a target for OS/driver development and one running kgdb for source level debugging.
This is just a "me too" post. I've to reboot my VMs quite often just for changing the NIC. Even for a simple backup I have to reboot: First I bridge networking to my DSL Router, performing an rsync from a remote location, than I have to reboot, connecting the virtual NIC to the local LAN to transfer backup archives to a small NAS. Sort of annyoing... I would really appreciate having multiple virtual NICs available, and I think a highly skilled coding machine like Andrew or one of his colleagues would only need half an hour or so to implement this, won't you?
I'd also like to know if this feature is still planned - and if so, could someone from parallels give us a clue about when it's going to be implemented?
