Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Releasing without USB support
- Thread starter mikesax
- Start date
well personally i'd like to be able to print to my very standard epson USB printer however fast the spooling takes.. Stamps.com is PC only, and the endicia for mac doesn't allow for sharing an account with a PC.
but i'm still pretty happy to have windows there for my windows only apps that do;t need printing.
it's pretty funny to hear the demanding language generated by this product on various threads like "this product is useless" and "just hand a windoze sign on the desktop" or even "i'm demanding my $ back if my USB thingy doesn't scream at GA release!"
i mean if you preorder then you get an $80 software package for half price, and if you really care about all the bullshit stuff that isn't working then talk to apple.. bootcamp isn't perfect either.
i guess there are people who expect everything to be tailored to them and their peripherals, and get mad when the email/ forum posting doesn't get answered in 14seconds on a sunday.
can't we all just apreciate that if it was easy and quick to implement then parallels might have integrated it already and that if they have to build shit from the ground up then it might take more than 6 hours from request to delivery?
hmm?
just my 2¢..
but i'm still pretty happy to have windows there for my windows only apps that do;t need printing.
it's pretty funny to hear the demanding language generated by this product on various threads like "this product is useless" and "just hand a windoze sign on the desktop" or even "i'm demanding my $ back if my USB thingy doesn't scream at GA release!"
i mean if you preorder then you get an $80 software package for half price, and if you really care about all the bullshit stuff that isn't working then talk to apple.. bootcamp isn't perfect either.
i guess there are people who expect everything to be tailored to them and their peripherals, and get mad when the email/ forum posting doesn't get answered in 14seconds on a sunday.
can't we all just apreciate that if it was easy and quick to implement then parallels might have integrated it already and that if they have to build shit from the ground up then it might take more than 6 hours from request to delivery?
hmm?
just my 2¢..
They are working on USB support. Obviously it is quite challenging. They also said early on that USB support was a must have for any final release.
Suggesting they ship a release version without full USB, the number one port for connection of external peripherals, seems absolutely mad. Please let's not start suggesting this. Some overworked programmer might just latch onto it, but the product needs USB implemented, and Parallels know this. As I said, from all indications, they are working on it quite hard, and kudos to them.
Suggesting they ship a release version without full USB, the number one port for connection of external peripherals, seems absolutely mad. Please let's not start suggesting this. Some overworked programmer might just latch onto it, but the product needs USB implemented, and Parallels know this. As I said, from all indications, they are working on it quite hard, and kudos to them.
netdog said:They are working on USB support.
How do you know that? I would like to hear that from an official Parallels member.
So far, in RC2 they already introduced "Improved USB performance and broader device support" which I can`t see at all.
netdog said:They are working on USB support. Obviously it is quite challenging. They also said early on that USB support was a must have for any final release.
I agree it is a must have. Not having the capabilities of my HP printer in a GA is unacceptable. Getting an error message in XP / Parallels that my USB 2.0 device will not work on a USB 1.1 connection just demonstrates that USB 2 is definitely not backwards compatable with a USB 1.1 BUS.
I'm really unsure where anybody would get an idea that USB 2 is backwards compatable with USB 1.1 BUS. A USB 2.0 BUS is backwards compatable with USB 1.1 devices, but that is very different. If they had made USB 2 devices backwards compatable with a USB 1.1 BUS, then the only advantage USB2 would provide would be increased BUS speed.
cetuma said:I'm really unsure where anybody would get an idea that USB 2 is backwards compatable with USB 1.1 BUS. A USB 2.0 BUS is backwards compatable with USB 1.1 devices, but that is very different. If they had made USB 2 devices backwards compatable with a USB 1.1 BUS, then the only advantage USB2 would provide would be increased BUS speed.
I have a USB 1.1 hub with a bunch of USB 2.0 devices plugged in to it and they all work (and they're low data quantity so they're fast enough and I'm too lazy to replace the working hub). This would appear to be the counterexample that demonstrates that USB 2.0 devices will work with USB1.1 ports, at least some of the time.
Of course with large data volumes, I'd consider increased bus speed a good reason to spend money for an upgrade.
Interesting you have such success with your USB 1.1 hub. I have a USB 1.1 hub, and neither of my USB 2.0 devices work in the USB 1.1 hub, or when plugged into USB 1.1 ports on regular WinXP systems. I had to buy a USB 2.0 card for my old system to be able to use any of them... Now that i'm using the MB Pro, i love the built in USB 2 it offers in OSX, although for the life of me I can't figure out why they didn't go with Firewire 800 and left it with FW 400.
Perhaps it's a matter of the type of device or the implementation by the vendor as to whether USB 2 devices work on a USB 1.1 hub/bus.
Perhaps it's a matter of the type of device or the implementation by the vendor as to whether USB 2 devices work on a USB 1.1 hub/bus.
Last edited:
Some USB devices work with both. All the ones I've tried will switch automatically. I wonder which ones you have that won't.cetuma said:Interesting you have such success with your USB 1.1 hub. I have a USB 1.1 hub, and neither of my USB 2.0 devices work in the USB 1.1 hub, or when plugged into USB 1.1 ports on regular WinXP systems. I had to buy a USB 2.0 card for my old system to be able to use any of them... Now that i'm using the MB Pro, i love the built in USB 2 it offers in OSX, although for the life of me I can't figure out why they didn't go with Firewire 800 and left it with FW 400.
Perhaps it's a matter of the type of device or the implementation by the vendor as to whether USB 2 devices work on a USB 1.1 hub/bus.
As to firewire, I suspect Apple's judgement was that 800 wasn't catching on. There are very few 800 only devices, lots of 400 devices, and USB seems to be taking over now that speeds are comparable. I'd expect Apple to support USB boot (if they don't already) and firewire to go the way of tape.
The increasing importance of USB in the industry is a good reason for Parallels to support full USB 2.0 pass through ASAP. The limitiation that's been talked about of two devices at a time is inadequate, as is the limitation of only one NIC. Real hardware supports more, and so should a VM solution if it is going to call itself a VM solution.
joem The increasing importance of USB in the industry is a good reason for Parallels to support full USB 2.0 pass through ASAP. The limitiation that's been talked about of two devices at a time is inadequate said:Agreed. Full USB passthrough and multiple NIC's are a requirement. If I wanted to be able to use VMware for simulating real environments rather just just personal computing, then most of the network security devices i work with require multiple NIC's.
I second the motion that parallels should consider pulling out USB support from the released version. While some users may be satisfied with the current USB functionality, I think there are curently too many problems being reported for a quality product. All other aspects of this product are outstanding.mikesax said:Parallels team,
You have built a truly amazing product! With great respect and some humility, I'd like to suggest the following release schedule:
1) Release Desktop 1.0 without USB support.
2) Immediately start the beta for Desktop 1.1, with USB support.
Other than the USB support, the product is in great shape. This way, you can release a bug free product, and still let the people who want USB support to proceed with the beta process (and it would be perfectly fine if the beta was only available to registered users).
-- Mike
snit said:I know, I was saying that "Fully functional 1.1" is reasonable to expect, and that I haven't seen people saying it is unreasonable for them to forego 2.0 in their GA.
I think Wesley was saying that "Fully Functional USB 1.1" is an unreasonable expectation, because even VMware can't get it work even with all their money, their much larger client base, and almost a decade headstart on Parallels.
I'm actually fine being in Beta for as long as it takes to get USB support in decent shape. The original message was written with the understanding that RC2 was going to be the final release before shipping, as was mentioned elsewhere in the forum. If that's the case, I think they should ship without USB support (and immediately start a 1.5 beta so people who are using USB support today don't get left in the cold).
The key is to avoid shipping an unpredictable product. It's fine to say "we only support USB for the following devices", but having a "it may or may not work" policy will cause Parallels to ruin its reputation and make VMWare look like the company that takes more time but does it right.
The key is to avoid shipping an unpredictable product. It's fine to say "we only support USB for the following devices", but having a "it may or may not work" policy will cause Parallels to ruin its reputation and make VMWare look like the company that takes more time but does it right.
Mac Switcher
Bit poster
Clarification Please
I was ready to put down my money until I read about this usb 2.0 issue - but I can't seem to find out detailed info: Does it negate the use of usb2.0 for the entire machine (ie, Mac os too) or is that only virtual os's can't have usb 2.0 speeds?
The question seems to answer itself - usb is machine-based not os-based correct? so it would affect all os's yes?
in other words I would pay to have Parallels give me some functionality but to also take away other functionality: ie my hard-earned usb 2.0 speed? Put my vote in the "no thanks" camp.
Or am i worng with my info?
Thanks for any clarification.
I was ready to put down my money until I read about this usb 2.0 issue - but I can't seem to find out detailed info: Does it negate the use of usb2.0 for the entire machine (ie, Mac os too) or is that only virtual os's can't have usb 2.0 speeds?
The question seems to answer itself - usb is machine-based not os-based correct? so it would affect all os's yes?
in other words I would pay to have Parallels give me some functionality but to also take away other functionality: ie my hard-earned usb 2.0 speed? Put my vote in the "no thanks" camp.
Or am i worng with my info?
Thanks for any clarification.
Mac Switcher said:I was ready to put down my money until I read about this usb 2.0 issue - but I can't seem to find out detailed info: Does it negate the use of usb2.0 for the entire machine (ie, Mac os too) or is that only virtual os's can't have usb 2.0 speeds?
The question seems to answer itself - usb is machine-based not os-based correct? so it would affect all os's yes?
in other words I would pay to have Parallels give me some functionality but to also take away other functionality: ie my hard-earned usb 2.0 speed? Put my vote in the "no thanks" camp.
Or am i worng with my info?
Thanks for any clarification.
You are wrong. You still have full USB 2.0 functionality in OSX. The virtual USB interface provided to the guest OS is 1.1. This has nothing to do with what OSX sees. USB is both machine and OS based using your model. It is 2.0 in the hardware and OSX. Parallels sees 2.0 but provides 1.1 to the guest.