Discussion in 'General Questions' started by sev7en, Jul 4, 2007.

  1. sev7en

    sev7en Bit Poster

    Dear Parallels Dev Team,
    I am a registered user since first release of your (a time...) awesome virtualization software. I also updated my license key the first day you did that because I was trusting you, and your skills.
    Today I give a look at VMWare's Fusion and... now I removed my registered version of Parallels for Mac v3 and I am a registered user of Fusion (yes, after a test of latest RC1 I bought this GREAT and still under heavy dev piece of software).

    Maybe a time you were leader on the market, because you did it as first but now let's time to do something better than banners or advertising markets.

    Looking forward for a REAL DirectX 9.x support, I need just that and you promised us THAT.


    Fabrizio Degni
    Software Engineering Dep.
  2. Andrew @ Parallels

    Andrew @ Parallels Parallels Developers

    Dear sev7en,

    I respect your decision to switch and I hope that in any case our product was useful for you and you didn't regret you paid for it.

    It will be very helpful for our team to understand why you decided to switch. Could you please list most important reasons here?

    I hope we will be able to fix this and you will switch back in the future!
  3. jaredm


    For what its worth, I thought I'd let the Parallels team know that I too might be switching to VMWare Fusion. I'll outline my reasons below, just to give the Parallels team some time to shape up before I have to make my decision:

    Pros for VMWare Fusion:
    • It feels more stable. My VM has locked up less frequently with the beta version of VMWare than with the production version of Parallels.
    • Support - VMWare provide speedy and professional replies to support queries. So far, Parallels haven't even bothered to respond to my query sent last week - so much time has passed that I solved the problem myself.
    • Disk corruption issues - My VM has never once crashed and left the disk file in an unreadable state under VMWare. With Parallels this has happened once so far.
    • Roadmap - we know what to expect with VMWare and when. With Parallels I dont know anything about how often you release builds and what new features are under development.
    • Leopard - I know VMWare will support this, no indication from Parallels on this.
    • Reading VMDK - all my colleagues use VMWare and we sometimes need to exchange files. I know I can use Parallels transporter but this is slow. It would be nice for Parallels to natively support VMDK/VMX file formats, especially since VMWare published the spec for them.

    At the moment my only sticking point with Fusion is Unity. I don't know how good the support for Vista will be and I don't know if they'll support Windows 2003.
  4. dailo


    I have Parallels 3 and I think its a great product, but after this latest RC1 build from VMware I find myself using mainly Fusion now. With the addition of Unity and the use of SCSI drivers really helps for performance! Competition is good and I hope that Parallels will release some awesome stuff in the future so I can make use of my Parallels installation.
  5. wingdo

    wingdo Kilo Poster

    Cool, could you please post Vmware's roadmap for Fusion? As someone who has used esx server for 2 years, and as someone who is testing Fusion this is all any of us EVER get from vmware ..... So if you have some sort of notification that the rest of us do not have, PLEASE post it as I am still determining whether I will be moving to Fusion when it is released (still too many issues for me to switch at this time).

    The following is a copy of the canned response found all over the Fusion forums:

    "Thanks for your interest in VMware Fusion.

    VMware does not comment on future products or roadmap.


    Pat Lee
    Senior Product Manager - Mac Products
  6. Scudder


    Lets be rationale

    After reading the many posts since June 10 I thought I would throw in my experience and some of my reflections for those that having problems. Let me preface by saying that I am 1 year mac switcher (and have used parallels from day the first beta was released with XP) and my hardware is an original intel macbook with 2G of ram and 120G hard drive. I also have an entirely separate, clean install VM running fusion with XP.

    Parallels screwed up the marketing with 3.0 and have admitted as much. I can live with that. While I am not a beta tester or have inside knowledge I believe they under intense pressure to make good on their promises and deliver what they promised.

    PD 3.0 has issues but shows alot of promise. Following suspending I sometimes get the windows file protection telling me to reinstall windows. I just reboot and im fine but it is irritating. Sometimes I wont be able to chose any devices to load into windoze, again I reboot and its fine. So, I dont suspend but instead shut down and restart each time. Inconvenient but tolerable for me. I also had to reactivate once ... weird since nothing changed but okay.

    PD 3.0 does a few things for me that fusion RC1 currently does not. I dont use windows except for a video conferencing program, powerpoint (I prefer the windoze version) and fitness program called Yourselffitness! While the macbook GMA is less than ideal PD 3.0 will run yourselffitness! with a few, unimportant visual artifacts. So I stay in great shape and get to get rid of my pc! Fusion currently runs the program flawlessly from a visual standpoint but cant seem to get the excercise avatar to move appropriately and has stuttering sound after a few minutes. So, for me PD 3.0 works. Not perfect but acceptable.

    MOST importantly, PD provides competition. Look at the prices for VMware's other virtualization products and you will see what I mean. Parallels is providing price competition and keeping the price of virtualization on the mac reasonable. You can see this illustrated here:,EXT-STORE-WKST6-MK&refererip=

    So, I am anxiously awaiting the fixes for PD 3.0 and am hoping that PD support team can get the resources they need to provide adequate support for the myriad of different OS installations etc that they would have to deal with. I also recognize that support costs money and that, in the end, virtualization may cost more because of this.

    I am not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.... and dont think you should either. While each solution to virtualization is about the same (each has their own, different issues) if you find one or the other that works better for you ... GREAT.... but try to be constructive in your feedback to Parallels so they can improve their product. If you continue to bash and badmouth you may end up paying another company $200 US to use virtualization on your mac.

    NOTE: Okay PD development team. I stuck my neck out and will likely get flamed. Prove me right and get us bug fixes and make good on your marketing promises.
  7. jaredm


    Scudder, I have to agree with you. The reason I bought Parallels but have yet to put my name down for Fusion is precisely because I feel there should be competition - I'd rather give my money to the underdog if only to make sure it can keep going.

    As a software developer myself I can appreciate how much technical wizardry had to be done to get a product like Parallels to where it is in such a short period of time. Indeed, Parallels have done a really impressive job keeping ahead of Fusion until now.

    With the finances of SW Soft, Parallels do have an opportunity to provide some healthy competition for VMWare (who are still bigger than SW Soft). With their anticipated server products they could certainly make a small dent into VMWare's market. This is especially important for SWSoft since VMWare are now going after hosting companies with their ESX product available on a pay-as-you-go license to web hosts (in direct competition with the model of Virtuozzo from SW Soft).

    However, Parallels need to get their act together now. They have a loyal customer base but they must treat them right. Answering paid-for support calls, responding to emails within the 3 business days promised, acknowledging bugs and providing estimates for fixes - that's all essential if they plan to keep their customer base.

    Personally, I can't afford to suffer any problems with my virtual machines because it'll mean I can't work until I can fix the problem. If it takes 3 days to figure something out, that's 3 days I can't work and 3 days I spend wondering if I'd have this problem when using VMWare. I would have happily paid 3x the $79 purchase price for a reliable product with a good level of customer support.

    I'll stick with Parallels for another month or so and then see what product can better meet my needs. Good luck to Parallels.
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2007
  8. David5000


    I am in general agreement with your and Scudder's comments. One nagging question though: Since Parallels does have the finances of SWSoft, what exactly is keeping them from acting like a bigger company with regard to customer service?

    Certainly they will have no chance of competing with VMWare's server products--let alone the desktop market--if they keep acting the way they have.

  9. Eru Ithildur

    Eru Ithildur

    I have to agree with what some of these people are saying about Parallels. I do not see a full improvement by Parallels in responding to support requests. I haven't been in from the start like some, but I have been fairly active in the customer support base. I am getting a computer I can break within the next week, I was intending on testing Parallels 3 and perhaps even trying to join the Parallels Beta program... Well, now I am seriously considering fusion, Parallels has been a series of workarounds to get my things working for me. It runs smoothly for my SQL server and doesn't break, but that requires ZERO USB support. My users HATE workarounds to do things, as that is NOT the Mac way. I am not moving our office, and my reccomendation to people as a consultant, from Parallels yet, but if Fusion supports USB and runs stably on my computer for a month I think I know what the best business decision will be.

    The BootCamp partitions as back-ups are just getting old...

    Hurry up Parallels, at least make a visible attempt to answer the supports requests or you may go the way of many other start-ups, great idea but no follow-through to bring it to the market dying with empty promises.

    I remain cautiously optimistic that you guys here at Parallels will pull things together for us loyal users.
  10. imaffett


    I haven't really had many problems with Parallels....just the occasional crash and insane resource hog (but I'm assuming my install Winblowz has something to do with it).

    I'll admit IMO, it's been a PR disaster from Parallels the past year. Many missed promises and horrible support (which is getting better). Has SWSoft always owned Parallels (IRC, no).

    I fall under the boat of "Well, it works for what I need". If VMWare (and Parallels) had a utility that would let you convert VM's for the others, I'd definitly try VMWare and make a choice, but I have so many programs installed on windows that are out of date and I can not use the new versions (Web dev stuff), so I need my install as it is.

    What I really want to see though is a one of those mini-distributions that has IE 6 running on it, as that's about all I use it for (via WINE).
  11. jruschme


    I think it would be more appropriate to say that PD has defined the market for a full-featured end-user virtualization solution. Prior to the introduction of Fusion, VMware seemed to define the world as server vs. workstation and free vs. paid.

    VMware Workstation is billed as a full-featured product for use by virtualization "developers". The end-user product for Windows and Linux is VMware Player which is essentially a run-time environment for vm's, though Player 2.0 includes features from WS 6.0 such as 3D support and shared folders. With the addition of some third-party tools, Player becomes a minimal but viable and free (as in beer) solution for the enthusiast.

    Fusion appears to exist somewhere between Player and Workstation, providing tools to create and manage VMs, but missing more powerful (developer-specific?) Workstation features such as clones, teams, and multiple snapshots. Of couse, Fusion also adds some totally new features, notably Unity.

    For Linux and Windows, VMware users, it will be interesting to see how features from Fusion find their way into the non-Mac products.

    As I've said elsewhere, though, Parallels needs to be very careful about keeping the loyalty of its users. We spend a lot of time on these forums talking about VMware, but the real challenger (at least in the windows and Linux markets) may be innotek's VirtualBox. At version 1.4, VirtualBox is already comparable to PWS/PD 2.x. As an open-source solution, it has the potential to evolve quicker than PWS/PD can.
  12. jaredm


    David, you've not had the (dis)pleasure of dealing with SWSoft and some of their other products like Virtuozzo or PEM. They are an enterprise software business and they behave like so many of them do - its all about quick profits and short-term gain while being completely blind to long-term prospects. In a way, it isn't their fault, it is just how the market is driven in the enterprise space.

    The problem is Parallels is not in the enterprise space and the same strategy just won't succeed here in the consumer/prosumer segment.

    BTW: I'm not sure if its been mentioned but I just found out that SWSoft plans to integrate Parallels into Virtuozzo ( I'm not sure quite how they plan to do that but if they manage it I do think SWSoft will have a HUGE edge over VMWare. Virtuozzo provides virtualization but with only one instance of an operating system kernel powering multiple virtual machines.

    If they can truly merge the two products into one then the end result will be that we can start running far more VMs on a machine and also have closer-to-native performance. Yes there is a price to pay in terms of OS-flexibility and patch management but if web hosting companies can live with it then most of us can.
  13. websyndicate


    I'm currently in the same boat. I have deleted parallels and went with VM. Now I did purchase 3.0 and asked for a refund be never got any response to 3 of my emails about me getting a refund. Funny how the system works. I needed stability and VM fusion gave me that when I began to use it. Sorry parallels 3188 was my last fav
  14. Miko



    1. 64bit OS Support
    2. Ability to assign 4gb of more of ram to a single VM!!!!
    3. Dual Core support for VM
    4. Unity with Expose' support

    Parallels is falling behind the completion and not delivering what was promised to the customers since the early beta and charging for updates instead of fixing old bugs.
    Not a very good marketing strategy!
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2007
  15. T1nyh


    I've been a parallels user for a long time, and have registered the Linux/Windows version, and the Mac version 2.5 and the upgrade to 3.0) The reason I'm spending more and more time using VMware now is for one stupid USB issue I have.

    I use a program called PDAReach that allows me to show my Treo screen on the desktop and lets me use my mouse & keyboard as well. I do all my scheduling in DateBk6 and don't like the way existing desktop softwrae such as Outlook, Entorage or Palm desktop work so it's ideal for me to enter a large ammount of data this way.

    Parallels used to support the program fine in build 3150 Before that build it didn't work, and every build since 3150 it doesn't work. So since upgrading to version 3 I haven't been able to use PDAReach.

    On tuesday of last week I installed the RC1 of Fusion and low and behold PDAreach works again. So I converted my parallels VM to VMWare and that's what I'm using now.

    I will keep installing every new build of Parallels hoping they can make the USB work like it did in 3150 again. :) Other then that I have no problems with both my USB Printers, flash drives, External HDD's etc. All works as expected with Parallels.
  16. cynic


    Well... I have to admit that since version 3 of PD which I preordered btw, I switched to Fusion. My only reason to switch is that Fusion has a far better Linux support than Parallels.
  17. Hugh Watkins

    Hugh Watkins

    I registered for the fusion BETA but parallels works so well for me I could not be bothered to do more or install it

    the same for the recent sun OS beta
    never got past the download

    But I look forward to beta testing the next Parallels

    Hugh W
  18. sev7en

    sev7en Bit Poster

    I agree with the points above and I would add also:

    1. Lack of support of DirectX 9.x Apps/Games
    2. Issues with the SigmaTel Audio Codec (it works sometimes, it's broken almost the time)

    I love the Parallels network sharing way, it's better than the one implemented with Fusion but it's 1 + agaist a lot of -.
  19. Pleiades


    When did Fusion start supporting DirectX 9? The topic starter essentially said Parallels is worth leaving for lack of D9 support. Leaving for what, I ask? I'm running RC1 for evaluation to see if I want to switch but I see no sign of DirectX 9 support. Parallels and Fusion both have essentially 8.1 support. Parallels has said on this forum they are working on it as a future 3.x upgrade, but I've seen no such roadmap from VMWare. Maybe they will but I don't know for sure.

    I, personally, like PD. I've rarely run into any problems and it runs stable for me for both XP and Vista, Boot Camp and non-Boot Camp. It essentially does what I need.

    I would like to see multi-processor support for the VM, x64 support, and the ability to allocate 4GB or more to the VM, but to me those are performance tweaks. I'm running x64 Vista in Fusion, but frankly nothing really takes advantage of the 64-bit support so I notice no real difference between Vista 32-bit on PD and Vista x64 on Fusion.

    So far in Fusion, it works as well as PD, though Unity support is spotty for Vista. On occasion, links stop working in the browser and the start menu won't respond until I toggle out of Unity and back in. Fusion also seems slow to me (debug off), even when optimized for VM.

    So far, there is no compelling reason to change, but I like to keep my options open. Maybe I'll buy Fusion anyway and run both.
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2007

Share This Page