Parallels inadequate support or geek user?

paco.blasco · Jan 15, 2007

Hi all:

I'm one of the "geek users" that is not going o test more beta versions.
I'm using beta 3038 for work, because it is stable enough and I need some of the new features, like a right clock in Linux (feaure???).
I know that Parallels engineers had done a GREAT work in few time, and I suppose, they are seeing VMware after they steps...
I'm sorry for them, becouse I'm buyed Parallels and I'm sure I will buy next version of Parallels, but I need less "nice to have" like coherence and more real things like SMP support (at least 2 processors), right keyboard mapping and stability.
Parallels will be perfect for me if I can use firewire cameras (IIDC) inside VMs....but I know that feature it is only a requirement for me.
But, I see a lot people trying to use Beta version....I believe we CAN NOT say that 3120 is a Release Candidate....too much buggy and unstable...sorry guys....

My opinion:
- Parallels must stabilize version 2.
- Version 2.5 must be installed at the same time...then people like I will check new version at the same time we work with the stable one.

What do you think?

paco.blasco · Jan 16, 2007

up!

Noone has an opinion?

Mac Pro 5GB · Jan 16, 2007

You should probably use version 1970 as it is the only official final release. All of these others are beta versions or release candidates, not final versions.

darkone · Jan 16, 2007

to be honest, ive not encountered an unstable version of Parallels yet. I'm not using bootcamp and everything ive needed to use it for at work, has worked without issue.

joem · Jan 16, 2007

I'd like the ability to switch Parallels versions on the fly in order to try new releases. Of course a Mac reboot would probably be required to switch hypervisors (if it changed), but the larger problem would be Parallels tools. This would probably require testing with a copy of the VM. Since I test with copies anyway, this wouldn't be much of a burden, but from reading the forum, I have to believe a large percentage of the folks here would have a problem managing simultaneous versions.

I'm definitely NOT looking for a product that will turn Windows into a Mac experience, but judging from the popularity of screen tricks like coherence, many folks are.

Personally, I would have preferred that they had put the time spent developing coherence and the ability to boot interchangeably between bootcamp and Parallels using the same set of bits, into core functionality such as USB passthrough and ability to use more than one core.

I find the eye candy useless. I use a computer to get work done, not just to play user experience with, and all the talk about how important icons are is very far from my needs.

And while I see the utility of MIGRATING between bootcamp and a VM, using both fro the same files seems a rich field for instability and I'll doubt very much I'll ever try it (nor am I likely to try coherence -- giving up stability for eye candy isn't a useful tradeoff in my view).

drval · Jan 16, 2007

I don't see Coherence as "eye candy" -- I use it almost exclusively at this point and would find it a real loss if somehow it were "taken away". Yes, USB functionality has been of great concern to me and the lack of such functionality was what kept me using Boot Camp, until Parallels 3106 arrived. Now I'm happily using 3120 as a development platform for Windows-deployed application.

dkp · Jan 16, 2007

paco.blasco said:
What do you think?

I think this was all pretty well covered in the 'Parallels's Big Mistake' thread. I agree with Joem and have said as much. They should focus on the core required functionality and introduce the fluff later.

I'll continue to examine and work with the beta and RC releases but won't waste any of my time looking at coherence and drag/drop issues, for example. I use virtual desktops in OS X and also in XP (available at the Power Toys page at Microsoft). I don't need coherence. And I damn sure don't need global drag and drop at the expense of exposing my OS X hard drive contents to Windows. I use a Mac to avoid the hell that is Windows. Running it in a very constrained sandbox is as much as I will tolerate.

drval · Jan 16, 2007

dkp said:
I think this was all pretty well covered in the 'Parallels's Big Mistake' thread...

Yes it was and giving up needed functions like Coherence to have geek fluff like multiple, concurrent versions is not something that is important to me.

Now, I'm sure that kind of statement is enraging to those who find such functions important -- just like I find the phrase "eye candy" to be enraging when used in re: to features that I find to be imporant for my professional use of Parallels.

Can we please keep the conversations respectful?

joem · Jan 17, 2007

dkp said:
And I damn sure don't need global drag and drop at the expense of exposing my OS X hard drive contents to Windows. I use a Mac to avoid the hell that is Windows. Running it in a very constrained sandbox is as much as I will tolerate.

It isn't clear that global drag and drop actually exposes the Mac filesystem to programs (specifically malware) running in the guest. Shared folders certainly do, but since drag and drop require physical presence (mouse click and movement visible to the host and probably not simulatable (is that a word?) in the guest), its existence need not, a priori imply exposure. Parallels has stated in the past that they were mindful of the sandbox requirement some of us have.

Parallels team: Can you comment? Does the existence of drag and drop enable malware on the guest to access the host without physical mouse activity from the user?

Jisi · Jan 17, 2007

> Parallels team: Can you comment? Does the existence of drag and drop enable malware on the
> guest to access the host without physical mouse activity from the user?

It most certainly does, since the actual copying is done using the sharing folder mechanism. In your .psf share you'll find a share wich exposes your complete MAC FS as a share, so basically if a virus is "clever" enough to work with shared network folders it could rip your poor little Mac to pieces

joem · Jan 17, 2007

Jisi said:
> Parallels team: Can you comment? Does the existence of drag and drop enable malware on the
> guest to access the host without physical mouse activity from the user?

It most certainly does, since the actual copying is done using the sharing folder mechanism. In your .psf share you'll find a share wich exposes your complete MAC FS as a share, so basically if a virus is "clever" enough to work with shared network folders it could rip your poor little Mac to pieces

This is not good. Hopefully (I haven't tried the later betas) the drag and drop functionality will be optional, and preferably able to be turned on and off from the Parallels menu without restarting the guest. Then it could be on briefly when needed. Otherwise it's pretty useless in an environment where malware is a possibility (which probably means any environment where Windows runs).

This is not good news.

I guess careful attention to permissions can reduce the damage propensity, but security is a two edged sword so that reduces OSX convenience.

Ugh -- why can't the world be perfect <grin>