Are we there yet?

Discussion in 'Installation and Configuration' started by davidallen, Mar 1, 2009.

  1. davidallen


    Is v.4 sufficiently stable to use?

    License is bought and paid for but initial version was so buggy I went back to 3.0...

    What say the masses?
  2. Hi davidallen,

    The New build of Parallels Desktop 4.0 is working fine and it has been proved that it is stable.
  3. Stefan Lisowski

    Stefan Lisowski

    I too am wondering about the answer to this question. I also bought version 4 but after reading horror stories I decided to stick to version 3.

    What do Parallels 4 users on the Mac say? I run XP on my Mac mostly, but somtimes Vista, Ubuntu, Fedora Core or Solaris for my job.
  4. Marcus Platts

    Marcus Platts

    I installed version 4 when it first came out. It wasn't a slick and pain-free install by any means but it went on in the end.

    I have to use windows quite a lot and Parallels is now rock-solid on my MacBook Pro. I use applications that use OpenGL (my reason for upgrading) and they seem to have no trouble at all. I'd say that I have several hours a day of hard use out of it and have yet to have any kind of crash of lock-up.

    To get multi-processor support you need to reinstall windows anyway (to get the ACPI HAL) - so knowing what I know now - I'd have installed a fresh Windows XP with version 4 and saved myself a load of hassle.

    I wouldn't say I'm 100% happy with parallels (a couple of annoying things that I'm just about to post in separate messages) - but I'm 95% there )))

  5. mwallace


    I give a resounding NO. Parallels 4.0 goes to 100% CPU as soon as I start it up. Note that this occurs before any of my Guest OS images have even been started. The program is literally just sitting there doing absolutely nothing, yet taking 100% of the CPU to do so. At least one other person has reported exactly this issue. It has been reported for approximately 6 months with no fix.
  6. jwjohnson99

    jwjohnson99 Bit Poster

    4.0 works fine for me on a MacBook Pro and a Mac Pro running XP.
  7. roadworrier


    I finally bit the bullet and upgraded because the ad for V4 crashed my V3 session (wish I'd never installed _that_ update). However I've regretted it. New version offers no new features that are useful to me, but my VM shortcuts don't work, and my USB connections require that I refresh my device list every time, things are a bit more sluggish, take a little more RAM. Wish I had more RAM to give it, but 2gb is my max on my 3 year old MacBook Pro. Anyway; it's not the worst thing in the world to be using v 4. If there were an easy way to avoid the upgrade I'd take that route given a 2nd chance.
  8. Chris Connor

    Chris Connor Bit Poster

    I use 4 with an XP client fine. Did have Vista in it but it was just too sluggish, but loving it with XP. No problems at all.

    Running on a MBP.
  9. Steelbom


    I installed it easily on my Mac Pro, I'd never had any other versions, nor other Virtual Machine sort of software, only recently I had a few times that it froze, but not often, and it always resumes from where it was, I'm happy with V4.0.

    Kind Regards
  10. eread


    Each iteration of PD4 is better than the last.

    I have PD4 running Linux distros, Windows versions and a BSD distro. Handles everything well.

    I would say it is performing better than VirtualBox ( which is seriously giving commercial products a run for their money! VB doesn't do BootCamp partitions though nor any sort of 3d acceleration.

Share This Page