Gotcha Sucker!

B

bwayne

Bit poster
I bought Parallels for Mac from a local electronics store to the tune of about $90.

I come home, install it, and it crashes everywhere.

I go to the technical support page and it advises me to upgrade.

I read this:
"Congratulations on your purchase of Mac OS X Leopard. To ensure a seamlessly experience with Leopard, it is highly recommended that Parallels Desktop customers only run Parallels Desktop 3.0 Build 5608, after Leopard has been installed."

SURE! Maybe that'll fix the crashing problem.

So I upgrade. And guess what ... my activation code isn't good for this version!


Please shill out another $50 bucks.

GOTCHA SUCKER!!
 
Please contact them and make sure your version is Parallels Desktop version 3, in this case you can upgrade to this version, otherwise just return it and ask for version 3
 
John@Parallels said:
Please contact them and make sure your version is Parallels Desktop version 3, in this case you can upgrade to this version, otherwise just return it and ask for version 3
Click to expand...

That's a great idea!

Just return it and ask for an upgrade.

Remind me what planet you live on again because around here brick and mortar folks DO NOT accept OPENED SOFTWARE back and they definitely DON'T UPGRADE FOR FREE!
 
The vendor should have some way of fixing it for you since they are the ones that sold you an out of date version for the current version price.
 
The vendor should have some way of fixing it for you since they are the ones that sold you an out of date version for the current version price.
Click to expand...

Sure. Maybe they *should*, but GUESS WHAT, they *don't*. There is no "current version price" in retail. There's only "what's on the shelf". Are you guys from Canada or something?

And seeing how the shrinkwrap box HAS NO VERSIONING ON IT WHATSOEVER, how do you expect customers to know what version they're buying? Oh, let me guess, the shrinkwrap version is clearly labeled, starting with version 3 ???

Furthermore, the application itself never gave a clue what version it was. It said "Build blah blah blah". No "version number".

Excellent usability and transparency, developers.

The funny thing is, Parallels KNOWS that the only version that works with Leopard is build 5608. If it isn't build 5608, if you're using Leopard, you're using BROKEN SOFTWARE.

Parallels knows this. And yet they won't bat at eye at charging you for upgrading to a WORKING VERSION.

Here's a clue, or three:

Upgrading from broken software IS NOT AN UPGRADE. IT'S A FIX.

You're "technical support" website encourages Leopard users to install a certain version to get functional software, and then, after the installation, drops a "invalid activation code, please give us more of your money" if they bought a previous version, unbeknownst to them, since there's no versioning either on the box or in the software itself. (oh yeah, "build numbers" how helpful!)

Pointing Leopard users who unwittingly buy an earlier version (because the version is, like, nowhere on the shrinkwrap box) back to the vendor where they bought it is horrible public relations.

But don't worry, I'll do some public relating for you. I'm sure it's not the kind you want, though.
 
Bwayne,

When you have your version installed, which version of Parallel does it says it is, because as far as I know, version 2.5 has a version which works with Leopard, so you could use that.
 
bwayne said:
Sure. Maybe they *should*, but GUESS WHAT, they *don't*. There is no "current version price" in retail. There's only "what's on the shelf". Are you guys from Canada or something?
Click to expand...

US

bwayne said:
And seeing how the shrinkwrap box HAS NO VERSIONING ON IT WHATSOEVER, how do you expect customers to know what version they're buying? Oh, let me guess, the shrinkwrap version is clearly labeled, starting with version 3 ???
Click to expand...

In shop they mandatory need to tell you the version

bwayne said:
Furthermore, the application itself never gave a clue what version it was. It said "Build blah blah blah". No "version number".
Click to expand...

See versioning
build up to 3224 version 2.5
upper builds are version 3


bwayne said:
The funny thing is, Parallels KNOWS that the only version that works with Leopard is build 5608. If it isn't build 5608, if you're using Leopard, you're using BROKEN SOFTWARE.

Parallels knows this. And yet they won't bat at eye at charging you for upgrading to a WORKING VERSION.
Click to expand...

No, build 3224 version 2.5 is working on Leopard



bwayne said:
You're "technical support" website encourages Leopard users to install a certain version to get functional software, and then, after the installation, drops a "invalid activation code, please give us more of your money" if they bought a previous version, unbeknownst to them, since there's no versioning either on the box or in the software itself. (oh yeah, "build numbers" how helpful!)

Pointing Leopard users who unwittingly buy an earlier version (because the version is, like, nowhere on the shrinkwrap box) back to the vendor where they bought it is horrible public relations.

But don't worry, I'll do some public relating for you. I'm sure it's not the kind you want, though.
Click to expand...

If you buy any old version from any shop we are always encouraging customers to let us know situations when you are sold old version, and there will be no additional money requirement from you - you have 30 days moneback guarantee, - if no let me know we will resolve this situation
We asked many times our resellers to stop selling old version, but we cannot control this in details and customers feedback is really important to stop such situation

And once again if you have problem returning product let me know
 
By the way,

I am in Canada, and I would simply have returned the package to my local reseller and he would have taken it back even if opened.

But I guess you do not have any good and honest reseller where you live.
 
fbronner said:
When you have your version installed, which version of Parallel does it says it is, because as far as I know, version 2.5 has a version which works with Leopard, so you could use that.
Click to expand...

fbronner,

I'm not sure what version I bought from Circuit City. I've reinstalled the version I bought, as you suggested. When I go to "About Parallels" from the menu bar the only information about versioning is the build number, which is 3186. Apparently, according to John@Parallels, this build number 2.5.

Besides, most of the folks at Circuit City are clueless. There's no versioning on the box anywhere. How're they supposed to know?

I know, I should've probably bought from an online retailer (or maybe not) , but I had to have Windows working immediately to use Visual Studio for a class of mine. I wasn't in a position to wait days for shipping. And I've been using it, tolerating the hard lockups of the MacOS and the freezes within the guest XP OS, for about six weeks now, so the 30 day deal is off.

So I guess I'm to blame for not dealing with this sooner.

But you can imagine my frustration when I search for answers, am told to upgrade to a specific version, and then am slapped with a "invalid activation code" message. Sure, the support page says that if you're using 2.5 to first upgrade to 3.0, but how is a normal user like me who isn't familiar with your build numbering scheme supposed to know what version they have?

Even the "more info" button within the "About parallels" window doesn't give a version number. The only versioning is the build number.

And finally to my biggest question of all, for John@Parallels:

Why does the support page tell Leopard user to definitely use build 5608 when build 3204 works well? Why are we told specifically to upgrade from version 2.5 to 3.0 if it isn't necessary?

The support page is not ambiguous:
"We highly recommend that Parallels Desktop customers only run Parallels Desktop 3.0 Build 5608 on their new Leopard operating systems."
 
John@Parallels,

Thanks for the link. Build 3224 still freezes the MacOS from time to time, requiring a hard reboot, but at least suspending the VM works now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top