Parallels' Bad Idea

dkp said:
Val - ... So far I don't see it swinging one way or the other but there have been nuisance distractions and bickering that have dampened even my enthusiasm for the project. If that settles down it may be possible to have a thoughtful dialog.

I would also add that historically the Parallels group has been pretty mum regards queries made by the forum members. In fact I wouldn't expect a response, but one is always welcome.
Click to expand...

Don't abandon ship, Cap'n. My sense is that finding a good resolution to this could also be critical to Parallel's future. They are up against some really stiff competition from VMWare, which in its current incarnation is very slow, due to, yes, debugging code, but which is rock solid and has outstanding USB 2.0 support out of the box. I have not seen a single user complain about a trashed installation. Moreover, it's clear what the direction of future development is going to be from the "enabled in future release" dialogues. And yes, they do

So if they do not get their development priorities straight, and start providing real support to paying users of released products, all their efforts may be for naught. They certainly deserve some slack to be cut for the moment, but ultimately they have to measure themselves against the rest of the marketplace. Your suggestions would represent a very good start.

As has been remarked elsewhere, it isn't always the rabbit that wins the race.
 
From a debugging standpoint it is also possible to install both Parallels and VMWare and use one for work and one for testing, then switch roles and do it again. They actually complement each other in a testing or work-at-risk production realm. Not quite the same as having two different versions of Parallels running concurrently, but it does offer possibilities. This is probably less useful with the Microsoft padlock problem with Vista, but for Solaris and Linux users it's not a bad option.

Edit: Shoot - I said running but meant installed. I don't think Intel hardware allows concurrent virtualization from two hypervisors.

Edit again: I've experimented with Parallels and VMWare and found I was wrong above - they will install side by side and run at the same time and provide VM services. My XP license doesn't allow running two of them and that's fine, but I can run two Solaris, one XP, and two Linux vm's in multiple hypervisor environments concurrently. I have to say I am amazed. This will give me some latitude, to relax some standards a bit, and allow me to install Parallels beta code without fear of losing my Solaris session running in VMWare. I have the best of all four worlds.

Just for fun I have Solaris 10 running in both Parallels and VMWare, and in each Solaris 10 environment I've created two additional Solaris 10 virtual machines. People, that is 6 Solaris virtual machines, one Linux boxen, and one XP boxen co-existing on a Mac laptop. All the while I've been watching the Apple Inc. demo of the iPhone (An opportunity for Parallels to install and run Palm OS in OS X on an iPhone!) and listening to my Hawaiian tunes in OS X.

Parallels just kicks ass!
 
Last edited:
Again, I would just emphasize that these specific comments should really be directed TO Parallels. I guess that it's my preference that notes here pertain really to Parallels. I'm not at all interested in VMWare, nor in comparisons to it. Having been a witness to many prior "wars" concerning "this system vs that system", I really don't want to see this forum become just another such battleground.

FWIW, I for one, find the current 3106 beta to be solid, but that's I'm sure partly because I have NOT tried to do any particular migration. Yes, there are a number of features that I'd LIKE to see at some point but that's as true for Parallels as it is for every other system, program or tool I've ever used.
 
drval said:
Again, I would just emphasize that these specific comments should really be directed TO Parallels. I guess that it's my preference that notes here pertain really to Parallels. I'm not at all interested in VMWare, nor in comparisons to it. Having been a witness to many prior "wars" concerning "this system vs that system", I really don't want to see this forum become just another such battleground.

FWIW, I for one, find the current 3106 beta to be solid, but that's I'm sure partly because I have NOT tried to do any particular migration. Yes, there are a number of features that I'd LIKE to see at some point but that's as true for Parallels as it is for every other system, program or tool I've ever used.
Click to expand...

I also have no interest in it but I'm not going to pretend it doesn't exist. And there's no war going on. In fact a Parallels enhancing suggestion has been made in regards to it. Parallels no longer exists in a vacuum so let's not pretend it does and we can discuss this like adults. And please stop trying to shepherd this conversation. Anyone is free to open this conversation with Parallels at any time including you. I'd still like to see what develops in regards to it.
 
don montalvo said:
that's funny...the very post you've been ranting about clearly states this. :)

don
Click to expand...

Sorry I missed it, Don. I revisited the page to get caught up and sure enough, one of us is right. Recalling that you said:

"wrong. parallels has already stated 2.5 (what we're beta testing now) will be a free release. version 3 will not.

don"

I searched for and expected to find "2.5" and "version 3" in any combination, and anything that would clue me in to what version we're beta testing now on that page and damn, right before my eyes, one of us is right. For the benefit of the group I'll leave it to you to clip in the text that validates what you said in the quote above. I have to because I could not find it. Sorry. Cut me some slack - I'm old.

What I saw was that 3036 is a free update to the current version which presumeably is 1970. Now I do know that the English language is not the first tongue of all the fine people at Parallels and I am happy to be flexible with language issues, but where did all those specifics in your quote come from? Is there another announcement page I missed? As much as I like to be right I hate to be wrong more and would appreciate your input.
 
Several people, in this thread and elsewhere, have implied that Parallels may not read all these forum posts. It's true that they don't attempt to personally answer many technical questions asked here, but I would be incredibly surprised if these forums were not quite closely monitored. The forum has a wealth of practical information about potential bugs, issues, and fixes. Not following this forum carefully would be ignoring the best source of information they have, even if they don't have the time/staff resources to answer the questions here.

I think splitting the forum between beta testing and production versions of the product is an excellent idea. Many users post issues without specifying the version of the product they are using, which makes it impossible to offer advice without more information. Also, even though people SHOULDN'T trust important, non-backed up information to a beta product, it is in Parallels own self-interest to make the new betas seem less like a simple 'upgrade'. People read about coherence/boot camp support and get excited and just click through all the boring text until they see "installation successful" and then they jump right in and show up here angry when stuff breaks. I really like the 'open beta' policy, but I think there should be a bit clearer division between it and the release product, and maybe an extra step (another layer of email confirmation?) required to join the beta test.

All of the beta issues are mostly irrelevant to me because I use parallels strictly for GNU/Linux, which hasn't been affected much (positively or negatively) by the beta features. My testing of the betas shows that for Linux they simply offer lower performance, less stability, and do not offer much enhanced functionality. I mention this only to demonstrate that I've had good results with Parallels, including the betas. I appreciate the challenges of crafting a virtualization platform, and I'm impressed with how good Parallels is.
 
Hagbard said:
All of the beta issues are mostly irrelevant to me because I use parallels strictly for GNU/Linux, which hasn't been affected much (positively or negatively) by the beta features. My testing of the betas shows that for Linux they simply offer lower performance, less stability, and do not offer much enhanced functionality. I mention this only to demonstrate that I've had good results with Parallels, including the betas. I appreciate the challenges of crafting a virtualization platform, and I'm impressed with how good Parallels is.
Click to expand...

Agreed - I nearly fell out of my chair when I dragged my mouse out of a VMWare instance of Solaris 10 and it didn't stop at the window's edge. Networking doesn't work at all and it's as slow as running Windows NT on an old Pentium, but it is running debug software. Parallels is not offering yet a tool kit for Solaris, nor even for Linux, I think. Anyway, at this very instant I'm running Solaris 10 in a VMWare vm, XP in a Parallels VM, and they're all getting along fine. I really didn't expect that. Not on a Mac laptop.

Parallels is putting a lot of effort into Windows and that is simply the most intelligent thing to do given the popularity of it. My interest is primarily Solaris because that is what pays my bills. I have little interest in Linux because that will run anywhere and there's no shortage of crappy old PC's to hang it on. Solaris is a bit more refined and less tolerant of sloppy hardware and there are fewer driver scribes out there scraping together libraries, so I was really happy they chose to emulate Solaris friendly hardware.

Despite what a couple detractors think, I'm very happy with Parallels including the last beta. But I can't help but think the dev team would be further along with just a few little changes. And there would be fewer trashed installs with those same changes. We use a lot of VMWare at work and I'm hoping we can generate some interest in Parallels for the desktop systems, at least.
 
I am very much in agreement with this post. I've used 1970, tried the betas, and gone back to 1970. I long for a stable release that really supports all the USB 2.0 devices that are essential to my work--scanners, back-up hard drives, video camera, Treo Smartphone etc. The beautiful eye candy does not make sense without the soild functional core. I need my daily stuff to work--beauty comes in a long second for me. And having been a beta tester in the past, this open release to everyone does not seem to get parallels the information it needs but does get all the anger of people who treat betas as if they were updates and then howl. FWIW.

Phil K
 
If anyone needed a strong clue that the beta process is off track you only need to read the Version 3116 thread here: http://forum.parallels.com/thread7565.html

Perhaps product improvement through chaos is a new engineering model I've missed in my readings.

The quote for the day regarding 3116, "No idea whats fixed or broken or new...".

That pretty much says it.
 
I think you are taking that quote out of context. It was not made by a Parallels employee. Obviously the person posting the link has no idea what is fixed or broken.
 
MarkHolbrook said:
I think you are taking that quote out of context. It was not made by a Parallels employee. Obviously the person posting the link has no idea what is fixed or broken.
Click to expand...

That was thrown in for my own humor because you need humor in your life. I included the link too, so anyone reading it would see the entire context. Sorry for the confusion. The more important point is that there is now an unannounced maybe release candidate making the rounds and hitting the disks of early implementers. What started as a bad idea just got worse. It is beginning to look amateurish at best.
 
dkp said:
That was thrown in for my own humor because you need humor in your life. I included the link too, so anyone reading it would see the entire context. Sorry for the confusion. The more important point is that there is now an unannounced maybe release candidate making the rounds and hitting the disks of early implementers. What started as a bad idea just got worse. It is beginning to look amateurish at best.
Click to expand...


I agree that your comments re: splitting the forum into two threads DID start out kind of bad -- not real bad -- but your idea of commenting on each moment of development is definitely beginning to look amateurish -- at best.

I believe that you've made your point(s). Continuing to flog the dead horse doesn't make them any more strongly than saying it once. Can you let it rest for a bit??
 
drval said:
I agree that your comments re: splitting the forum into two threads DID start out kind of bad -- not real bad -- but your idea of commenting on each moment of development is definitely beginning to look amateurish -- at best.

I believe that you've made your point(s). Continuing to flog the dead horse doesn't make them any more strongly than saying it once. Can you let it rest for a bit??
Click to expand...

I actually thought I'd keep going until you finally say something useful. You're up.
 
dkp said:
I actually thought I'd keep going until you finally say something useful. You're up.
Click to expand...

I asked if you could give it a rest. Obviously the answer is no and I think it's useful for that to be clarified.
 
And you said some days ago that you had no more to say on the subject. But let's ask for a moment why we are here having this conversation. I made the suggestion that perhaps there is a process problem with Parallels. That is a conversation you have never been a part of, btw. Well today we have the strongest possible evidence that my concerns are true and that Parallels and their customers have valid reason for concern. Now that would be me.

So now that the problem is escalating why are you suggesting I let it go? More than ever it is worth discussing. What I suggest you do is find a way to avoid this thread, and I'd go further and say avoid me. Show some spine and drop your demotivational drumbeat. And please - your numbing droning bickering tone is destroying an otherwise well attended and meaningful conversation.

And in the future do not speak for me. It is complicated enough when I do it.
 
Actually you might want to look at post #54 -- I believe it's the one you're referencing.

Have you actually sent any of your comments directly to Parallels? You never replied to that question. You continually imply that Parallels is some awful company when they are actually doing a very good job. Today there is an announcement re: the latest RC. It is precise, informative, cautionary and clear. Instead of saying: Yes, that's what should be happening, you take the events of today as further evidence of your belief about how awful Parallels is.

One wonders what it is that you really want.

What is the problem with just sending your comments on to Parallels? Post them here as well but send them to Parallels -- if you really want corrective actions to be taken.

So, again, one wonders what it is that you really want.
 
Enough Already

Don't you guys get it yet. dkp is NOT "listening". Talk, talk talk. Or reply, reply, reply. He'll post within 15 minutes regardless of what is said. Counting......;)

DaveB
 
drval said:
Actually you might want to look at post #54 -- I believe it's the one you're referencing.

Have you actually sent any of your comments directly to Parallels? You never replied to that question. You continually imply that Parallels is some awful company when they are actually doing a very good job. Today there is an announcement re: the latest RC. It is precise, informative, cautionary and clear. Instead of saying: Yes, that's what should be happening, you take the events of today as further evidence of your belief about how awful Parallels is.

One wonders what it is that you really want.

What is the problem with just sending your comments on to Parallels? Post them here as well but send them to Parallels -- if you really want corrective actions to be taken.

So, again, one wonders what it is that you really want.
Click to expand...

Val - don't make stuff up. I've had nothing but praise for Parallels. They made some mistakes and that means there are opportunities for improvement that I and others have commented on. It does not at all surprise me that you wonder about things discussed here because you have yet to discuss the very issues for this this thread was started. My correspondence with Parallels is a private matter.

Regarding the announcement, it was not visible when I responded earlier. I've since read it. It is excellent. Do you need more proof that someone has been following this thread? But that does not in any little way or great remove the fact that for several hours today an unauthorized version of the software was out there and people were installing it. We call that opportunity, Val. Opportunity to make the system better. Process improvement. It is always worth the effort. Continue not being a part of it - not everyone is cut out for it. But if you're going to continue to not be a part of it please not be a part of it without me. Stalk and harass someone else for a while. If you keep bothering me then I will have much to say to the team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top