As a paying customer, apart from having problems with just one of the betas (betas are betas so this isn't entirely unexpected) I have been perfectly satisfied with Parallels from my own needs in terms of why I have bought the software. I bought the software to cover my personal, and more importantly work needs, to have OSX at home but still work with XP and Windows Server where I need to. Parallels does this admirably, and with an important project I had recently where I had to do a lot of exchange of data between XP and OSX coherence was a life saver (my first impression was that it was just a gimmick). However, getting to the point, with their focus mostly on Windows, Parallels has managed to perform exceptionally well (beyond expectations? and IMO speedwise etc, much better than Fusion at the moment) why don't they just target that market? I am probably not alone in this community to be someone who does have an interest in other OSes (we're using OSX despite the fact that Windows supposedly owns the desktop on the PC). VMWare's Fusion (still in beta) has tools for Linux and Solaris, a much requested feature of Parallels but still with no sign of life yet despite many requests, just a vague "yes we are working on it". I even managed to get BeOS Max working in Fusion very easily which I had never managed in Parallels, and actually this is what prompted this post. I used BeOS for personal use exclusively for perhaps two years (at its peak on the X86 platform). Of course it is understandable that a more or less exctinct OS such as this isn't supported and I freely admit I wouldn't spend money just to have BeOS, but my point is it works in Fusion but not Parallels. Clearly this points out the strengths and weaknesses of the 2 VM solutions here. Again, why doesn't Parallels just drop everything else and just concentrate on being a Windows on Mac solution and leave the less lucrative alternative OS market for VMWare? Or is that promised support just around the corner? my 2 cents.