Good grief, am I the only one happy with PD 3?

On the subject of dot zero releases: Here's the lineup that people expect to work:

BootCamp: Beta - Vendor: Apple
Vista: dot zero - Vendor: Microsoft
Parallels: dot zero - Vendor: Parallels
OS X: Rather mature on PCC, very new on Intel - Vendor: Apple
Windows applications: Various versions, various vendors
Hardware: Apple Intel, barely one year experience.

And people expect all this to work entire without problems? Oh, please. It's amazing that any of it works at all let along that it's come this far in barely a year from creation for many of the components.

 

The documentation which was not readily available at the time they were pushing the upgrader "discount." This forum is not easily available via the main page; I only found it through a blog posting talking about something else. And I never saw the release notes until I'd already bought & downloaded the upgrade. The compatibility list could very well have been on the website all along, but every link I followed just took me to a page that made no mention of the DirectX 8.1 limitation, and no mention that Vista support for Direct3D was less than that of XP's. That's not the case of stupid users not reading the fine manual, that's the case of a software publisher not providing the documentation for buyers to make an informed decision.

People getting upset that software they bought didn't perform as advertised. What gall!This is a completely ridiculous argument. Whether it's $10 or $70, yes, I'm going to be upset when I pay for something that I don't get. Period.

And no, we didn't "have" to buy the upgrade within the time frame, but we received multiple e-mails encouraging us to. If you could get "ONLY" $10 off the price of something for being a previous customer, and if the previous product had delivered on its promises and built up goodwill with its customers, then why WOULDN'T you take advantage of the offer?

How about this: you should *always* deliver what your advertising promises. No matter whether its marketing literature or technical documents. To do otherwise is incompetent at best, unethical at worst.

Why do SWSoft apologists keep insisting that it's the users' fault for getting duped? Why is it somehow stupid or ignorant to expect a piece of software to deliver what it promises?

Whenever someone on this forum requests his money back, a Parallels representative says that the company wants to hear the problem they had, so they can fix it. That's exactly what I'm doing:

Problem: Literature available before release does NOT adequately describe the level of capabilities of the software. Detailed compatibility list is NOT made readily available to customers during the availability window of your promotional offer.
Suggested Fix: Don't do that again.

 

Unfortunately, most of us are no longer in first grade, and we don't get a gold star or an E for effort.

How about this: next time I have a project to do for a client, I'll make a vague set of promises on what I'll deliver. And I'll send out an invoice and ask for immediate payment. If they don't pay it within a week, my rate is going to go up.

When I finally deliver, and it doesn't perform as advertised, I'll insist that it's the initial release -- what did they expect? Doing this stuff is really hard! They should be impressed that it even works at all! They wanted more than that? Oh please, what are they, stupid?

How long do you expect I'll be able to stay in business doing that?

Yes, what the new release of Parallels does is very impressive. What it promised to do was even more impressive. That's the reason that I personally am sticking with it instead of asking for a refund, because I expect the (free) upgrades are going to deliver. That doesn't let them off the hook, though.

 

I'm just listing why I've been skeptical they could pull it off per the hype they've provided. I never believed it but I am impressed with how far they've come. I'm personally disappointed in some aspects of the new release. So much so that I've uninstalled it until the problem is solved. I don't want Windows to be able to go near OS X and certainly I don't want Windows to be able to execute OS X native applications. I want it in a sandbox where it belongs. Not being much into being a victim I solved the problem - Uninstalled it and installed Fusion Beta 4. I bought 3 upgrades and will keep them all and look forward to a time when I can run them.

Edit: I'd like to add that except for the security flaw, Parallels 3.0 was working perfectly here and well within my expectations. I'm actually mostly happy with it.

 

If you expect buggy software, you get buggy software.

 

That is irrational. There is no cause and effect between expectations and product quality outside your control.

 

I am impressed by PD3, they have done what nobody else has so far. Sure it is the first step, and a lot of things do not work perfectly, that is pretty normal. (these days)

They also have a 15day trial, very gracious, so I do not understand all the people demanding refunds.. they let you test drive it!

I need to try some of these games myself, since a lot of the tests are done on MBP, and I have a MP.

Keep up the good work, and keep the updates coming out regularly.

 

Think someone has been reading "The Secret" just a little too closely

 

Interesting response, SolGrundy. You're not listening to what I'm saying.

First, the lack of visibility of the forums sucks. I've complained about it on these lists, on other sites, and directly to SWSoft. There should be direct links to the forums from the main page, from the product pages, and in their marketing emails. Release notes, known issues, and release history should be easily accessible.

Second, I'm not a freaking Parallels apologist. I totally agree that the 3D thing was over sold - it should NEVER have been stressed as a major selling point for this release, period. This issue has detracted from what is otherwise an impressive release.

Third, I NEVER said anything about "stupid users". Those are YOUR words, not mine. Your complaint about the lack of visibility of this information is valid. My complaint is about people cursing and being overly aggressive in their responses to other people's posts - your response is a perfect example.

Finally, I never said that it was these users fault for being duped. I merely stated that folks should always test a product out to see if it meets their needs before making a purchase. That's just common sense. Let's be perfectly blunt here: marketing lies. Advertising consistently overstates the quality and capabilities of products without announcing said products' limitations or defects. Should a company always deliver what it's advertising promises? Absolutely. Do companies consistently do this? No. Denying this fact merely illustrates your poor grasp of reality and the world that we live in.

Sadly, your fictitious example of vague promises and failed delivery, while intented to be sarcastic, is actually a good example of the current state of custom software development, consulting, and development outsourcing. You don't need to dig too deep to find examples of major consulting firms doing exactly what you mentioned, costing state agencies millions of dollars per project. This is the reality of the world we live in. Does it suck? Yes. Should something be done about it? Yes. Does that change the fact that it constantly happens? Absolutely not. Apply a little bit of critical thinking and accept the fact that a product may not actually live up to its marketing literature. Test the software before committing to a purchase.

Whenever marketing drives development without significant developer input issues like this will happen. The Dilbert comic strip is funny because it so closely mirrors the realities of corporate management and marketing. Sad, but true.

You've come out swinging on this post without realizing that I'm agreeing with most of what you are saying. Next time actually read a post before hitting the reply button.

 

I'm happy. The only thing I'd love to see is a better graphics response in Acad, but I don't think it's Parallels fault. I'll have a look later and try and tweak it. For my normal work it's awesome.
I can't comment on tech support as I haven't used it yet.

 

mjankor, I've been hoping to hear from someone about autocad compatibility. What version are you using? What is your guest OS? Is the graphics response slow in 2D as well as 3D models?

Thanks!

 

Autocad 2007 runs very well for me. I don't use 3d though. I only use it for drafting.

My gripes are:

I get occasional slowdowns doing some tasks. At the moment I have a 5 second pause when closing the console. That's the only thing I've found that runs slowly at the moment but in 3188 there was a pause during one of my scripts.

The cursor and movement in 2d work is slightly flickery. It's not a huge problem unless you're doing rapid repetitive work (in my case, shifting text around for readability). I am going to see if I can change this by tweaking Acad.

 

I'm using Rhino 3 and 4 and it works very well. I've never run either version on anything but my MBP and Parallels. The Rhino vendor is just a few blocks from me, and one of their employees and I have checked it out on my system and he thought it looked and worked great. He and I did a 6000+ mile trip on our Harley's last summer and he's somebody I trust.

 

I didn't read my response as "overly aggressive" at all.

It was in response to being told over and over again, that the fault with the software is in users' unrealistic expectations. You used "RTFM" earlier and here, the equally condescending "next time actually read a post." If you're offended by "cursing" and posts that you feel are "overly aggressive," certainly you can understand how some of us are equally offended at being talked down to, told that we didn't adequately research the purchase, or that we fail at reading comprehension.

And as for my "poor grasp of reality:" if you want to accept misleading advertising and a product that doesn't perform as promised, because that's just the way things are, then suit yourself. I'm going to choose to complain about it, and bring it to the developers' attention, so that they can address it. I suppose I just feel it's better to be a "whiner" with no sense of "critical thinking" than it is to be a defeatist.

 

QFT. Well said.

But SolGrundy forget it. Really. They are fanboys. And a few of them probably work for SWSoft. The word is already out how bad this version was/is. The market place will take it from there.

And still no response from the company. LOL

 

"On the subject of dot zero releases: Here's the lineup that people expect to work:

BootCamp: Beta - Vendor: Apple
Vista: dot zero - Vendor: Microsoft
Parallels: dot zero - Vendor: Parallels
OS X: Rather mature on PCC, very new on Intel - Vendor: Apple
Windows applications: Various versions, various vendors
Hardware: Apple Intel, barely one year experience.

And people expect all this to work entire without problems? Oh, please. It's amazing that any of it works at all let along that it's come this far in barely a year from creation for many of the components."


Wow, I haven't seen this many deluded people on the internet since the 1990's.