Hi Xenos, thanks for the answer.
The suspend/resume problem I'm referring to is mentioned on the first page of this particular topic and was confirmed by many other users. Parallels 2.5, build 3214 would always fail to resume a suspended machine. The CPU would go to 100% on one of the cores and nothing would ever finally happen - you could leave it for 4 or 5 hours (I did, once) and nothing ever happens. That's what I'm talking about, and it's the problem that many other 2.5 users were struggling with.
I'm happy to say that in my limited use so far, build 3224 does seem to address this issue and I've successfully suspended/resumed machines probably half a dozen times so far, which is half a dozen more than I ever managed with 3214 under Leopard.
So thanks for that - it's appreciated that you guys have fixed it for the 2.5 users.
But I'm concerned at how little information there is about what gets fixed in these releases, or even what bugs there are. I don't know what internal system you have at SWSoft but I presume you guys assign issue/incident numbers to bugs and that you have some kind of regression testing regime so that old bugs can be checked in new builds of the software? I'm not asking you to do your dirty laundry in public, but I do think many frustrations here could be lessened if we had a better vocabulary with which we could exchange information about bugs, recurrences of problems or just the things that made it (and things that didn't make the cut) whenever a new release is made.
I appreciate that Parallels has come a long way in a short period of time; it was a fantastic product when it started out and it really didn't cost anything significant at all. But I'm worried that it's jumped the shark a little recently - not just with the Leopard growing pains but there is a feeling that it's not really as under control and focussed as it might be.
I really hope I'm wrong, though; and all griping aside, I thank you for getting 2.5 to work under Leopard (it's appreciated) and I sincerely wish you a prosperous New Year!
Cheers
Rob
The suspend/resume problem I'm referring to is mentioned on the first page of this particular topic and was confirmed by many other users. Parallels 2.5, build 3214 would always fail to resume a suspended machine. The CPU would go to 100% on one of the cores and nothing would ever finally happen - you could leave it for 4 or 5 hours (I did, once) and nothing ever happens. That's what I'm talking about, and it's the problem that many other 2.5 users were struggling with.
I'm happy to say that in my limited use so far, build 3224 does seem to address this issue and I've successfully suspended/resumed machines probably half a dozen times so far, which is half a dozen more than I ever managed with 3214 under Leopard.
So thanks for that - it's appreciated that you guys have fixed it for the 2.5 users.
But I'm concerned at how little information there is about what gets fixed in these releases, or even what bugs there are. I don't know what internal system you have at SWSoft but I presume you guys assign issue/incident numbers to bugs and that you have some kind of regression testing regime so that old bugs can be checked in new builds of the software? I'm not asking you to do your dirty laundry in public, but I do think many frustrations here could be lessened if we had a better vocabulary with which we could exchange information about bugs, recurrences of problems or just the things that made it (and things that didn't make the cut) whenever a new release is made.
I appreciate that Parallels has come a long way in a short period of time; it was a fantastic product when it started out and it really didn't cost anything significant at all. But I'm worried that it's jumped the shark a little recently - not just with the Leopard growing pains but there is a feeling that it's not really as under control and focussed as it might be.
I really hope I'm wrong, though; and all griping aside, I thank you for getting 2.5 to work under Leopard (it's appreciated) and I sincerely wish you a prosperous New Year!
Cheers
Rob