Mac Product Should be in APLHA Stage

Whether or not this software is "beta" in arbitrary terms is besides the point. There is a very real, quite pent-up demand for the exact functionality that Parallels is offering. Rather than let a competing product get the heads up on them, they publicly released as soon as it was moderately safe to run.

For a company new to the Mac community, these guys have an impressive grasp on what it takes to be a developer for Mac users. The app is mind-numbingly simple and they 'get' that the Mac userbase is an early adopting one. They will find out that it is also a very loyal community. Kudos guys, and good luck even tho you don't need it.
 
I agree with brent. I never heard of Parallels before the Mac version announcement, but after using the beta I'm hooked. The speed... oh god, the speed is so vastly close to native environment that I can't even think of running emulated environment like QEMU anymore. That alone is enough for me to hang on despite the lack of USB or, before the current beta, sound. With each beta I feel like getting a free gift.
 
I agree completely with all. I think making it Beta was reasonable... bigger user base to test and find errors and they have been very responsive to finding and fixing those errors. Unfortunately for most of us this is EXACTLY what we have been waiting for an OS X product that can run Windows, as fast as windows would run if started alone.

For me it's ideal... when it gets stable enough to not corrupt what I work on. So I will pre-order and hope for the best. I think they will conquer the bugs. The one that scares me the most are the kernal panics... I can certainly live with no sound or a video that isn't totally smooth. But a reliable no crash OS is most important. It's the main reason I'm on OS X rather than Win XP (which I must develope for).

Mark
 
Like to say just as the others here have said. Very nice to have access to this program. I have found 2 programs that will cause kernel panics (OSXvnc if loaded after Parallels is running and CyTV.) So since I stopped running CyTV (CyTV is like Slingbox for EyeTV.) and load OSXvnc before hand, beta 3 has become very stable. I have sent the panic reports on to the Parallels team so that they might be able to work out the bugs with these apps.

But I too have been able to get things done. I do real estate and can now conduct my RE business on the Mac with out having to rely on a PC. Most all Real Estate web apps require Windoze to run (MLS, Top Producer and Paragon.) So nice to be able to be all Mac. I did run a dedicated PC and VNC'd to it, but the screen refreshes where not good (more about that in a sec.)

b2 was faster at loading. b3 is just a tad slower. But what is really amazing is how fast IE over Safari. I have also tested AutoCAD (trial version), CorelDRAW 12, Adobe Photoshop and Acrobat professional. All run well, plus I have 1518 fonts loaded into my VM!! Just running with 256MB RAM and very surprised at the performance. And to top it off, I connect to my iMac from my Dual G5 via Chicken of the VNC and can control the Win2K VM from this system. I have a GIGa bit hub that these two systems talk through, so screen refresh is good! So it the iMac totally dies from a crash I still have my other system. Also can connect directly with the Win 2k VM through VNC Dimensions on the Mac. Doing it this way the iMac screen stays off while working on the VM system. The screen refreshes are not as good as they are with Chicken of the VNC, plus Thumb wheel scrolling works in Chicken of the VNC, where it does not in VNC Dimensions. VNC connections directly to Windows with Chicken of the VNC don't work well at all, but Mac to Mac it is excellent. I use my iMac more as a TV and its in my family room, but bought is so I could have access to the new Intel architecture. PC to PC using Tight VNC works very well and you have lots of options like running the screen at certain percentages of screen size.

Hope all this info helps others that would like connect remotely to there systems, even if it just same room!
 
Continuing on the Google beta notion ... One big problem is that a lot of people use Google script kiddie type betas, which even at their worst can't do much harm. Anybody who is using beta software that is largely based on kernal extensions and doesn't expect to have issues that *can* be catastrophic is being naieve. A Beta for the latest google web widget is a far cry from a beta for a hypervisor virtualization solution.
 
There are some release software out there that are about on par on stability as beta1 of PW for OS X... and you wait for the devs to come out with version 1.01. Hehe.
 
zmonster said:
Hello,

I am impressed with the Parallels technology, and I even pre-ordered a license. However, the truth of the matter is that the current product should really be considered an "ALPHA" release, and should only be distributed to a select few. There are numerous performance and panic problems still left to be ironed out. I believe it is somewhat dangerous for people to be installing the current product on their systems assuming it is of "beta" quality. I would prefer to see Parallels doing their own internal testing and get the product up to speed before releasing a "beta", let alone the production product. Just my $0.02.

- Eric
Click to expand...
This is very good piece of software, which I find good enough to be called a beta. Please keep in mind that running Windows in a Virtual machine on a MAC was just a dream just a few months ago. For sure, there are still issues to be resolved, but I am glad the author released the program to the public for testing.
 
Sharkus said:
*sigh* I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

I think we have differing viewpoints on the classification of "beta".

To me it means pre-release, test software, not verified for use on mission critical machines. It has undergone some testing, but not extensive in-depth testing. There may be minor issues, there may be major issues. It's released to allow it to be tested in a wider field than would be possible in-house.

It is possible that they never saw the corruption problems in house. I've had clients experience issues that are simply not reproducable in-house, for various reasons, some of which are never fully tracked down. These issues usually seem to only effect a particular client, thus suggesting the possibility that it's related to there specific setup (custom OS image for example)

I've encoutered a few issues with the software, and I've put that down to it being beta. If I had a disk corruption issue, I'd still put that down to it being beta, and if it trashed my machine, well, I've been running beta software, what else should I expect.

Adding to the above. I think Google has skewed the majorities perception of what beta means, due to their use of Beta as a marketing tool more than anything. Thus everyone assumes if it's beta it'll work and there will only be very trivial niggles in the software. This is unfortunately wrong, and impacts on all developers.

I've used the same argument with those who are saying that they won't use Boot Camp as it's left their machines unusable. Again, it's beta, so the above applies.

I think Parallels is a fine beta, I've had a few issues, and I've reported them back and they have been addressed, which is the idea here. If this were final release software, yeah I'd be a little pissed off, but it's not, it's pre-release (let's use that instead of beta, saves any problems with people assuming that means it's perfect :p) and so there are issues, simple.

Bottom line? report your issues, ask Parallels what info you can provide to them to help make it better. Don't sit there and just complain and not do anything, we need to help them.
Click to expand...

I've been developing bio-medical and industrial control applications for 22 years. The names, "alpha", "beta", "pilot", "pre-release" are all what the company desires to make of them.

Would it have been appropriate for Parallels to release this code as "alpha" to a mass market for further testing? Absolutely. They have been COMPLETELY up front about what you can expect from the software. They have never billed it as a "stable, finished product."

The fact that they choose to call it "Beta" is by their own design. Some may say it's a marketing ploy to make the software seem more finished than it is. Frankly, it does look very polished in many ways, I.E. the user interface is nicely done. So I can totally seem them calling it a Beta.

Regardless is there anyone here that thinks a "Final Release... V1.0.0" of any product is bug free? If you do then you live in a fantasy world. In the world of technically complex operating systems and in my company's case technically complex pieces of software that have to interact with robots, motors, pumps and rely up on firmware, the idea of a bug free application is almost laughable.

What most companies like mine do is to make the final release V1.0.0 as stable as possible for the intended mission and once the customers begin to use that product we have a period of "post release" fixes that address critical problems as they are found.

What this means to me is that the day we all receive our "purchased" copies of the release version of Parallels I expect we will still see reports in this forum of kernel panics and sound not working, and perhaps even a corruption condition. I hope I'm dead wrong, but the problem is really that there are so many variations of hardware, firmware, guest OS's that to handle every possible condition is a monumental effort.

Personally I think Parallels is doing a very nice job so far. I just hope it will soon get to a stability point that I feel safe putting it on a MacBook Pro and depending up on it at a client site. Unfortunately I cannot afford one single OS corruption when working at a client site. So I will wait before I go that route. But I have pre-ordered my copy.

I plan to test extensively on my Mini Duo Core and see just how stable it gets.

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top