Neglected Step-Child

John,

I bet you have a tough job here ;-)

I believe that those promised features (if we could see them a day) are already available in your competitors products, so there will be still no need to switch again.
 
I'm not sure if "neglected step-child" is the right metaphor, because Parallels Desktop for OS X feels tremendously neglected as well. Even if they come out with lots of upgrades with impressive-looking version numbers, it still doesn't actually work. (Many versions literally won't even try to start a virtual machine.)
 
A couple of interesting quotes from the Information Week review of Parallels Desktop 4 (http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/reviews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212100002&pgno=1&queryText=&isPrev=) which opened with the following:

When the first version of Parallels Desktop hit the streets two years ago, it was just amazing. The software allowed you to run Windows, along with its applications, on Mac OS X. Mac users just flipped for it.

But with Parallels Version 3, introduced last year, the company seemed to have lost its way. The software was slow and buggy. Users put up with the problems for a while, because it was the only product of its kind, but when competition emerged, in the form of VMware Fusion, users switched to the new product. VMware even ran its own "switcher" marketing campaign, like Apple did against Windows.

Today, I know about a dozen people who use the VMware product. I only know one person who still uses Parallels. He complains about it a lot.

This month the company (also called Parallels) introduced Parallels Desktop 4, which it says has significantly improved performance and stability over the previous version, and a few new features.

In other words: Parallels is back from its long spree in Vegas, with a bouquet of roses in hand and a hangdog expression its face. It's promising to be good. It wants us to take it back.

Should we open our hearts and give the relationship with Parallels one more try? Or should we kick it to the curb?
Click to expand...

And ended with the conclusion:

But I can't give my wholehearted recommendation to Parallels. The product's history is tainted. Parallels 3 was a lemon, and a company that comes out with a lemon once might do it again. You might be happy with Parallels 4, but find that Parallels 5 is a dud, and you've spent money on a dead-end product.

Moreover, while I didn't find any significant bugs in Parallel 4, other people have. Or they claim to. Users are complaining on the Internet about problems installing Parallels 4 and getting support. For example, see these Lifehacker comments from rychdom, and Durbrow (with replies). NineTailedFox writes: "The application is named 'Parallels' on the basis that there may be parallel realities in which I'm happy about being charged $40 to upgrade a piece of software which has never approached acceptable performance."

Normally, I'd write those off as a vocal minority -- any new product, no matter how good, will create problems for some users. But given Parallels' troubled history, I'm reluctant to simply dismiss the complainers' concerns.
Click to expand...
 
Still nothing cooking for Linux and Windows?

Crickets....Crickets.

Have to ask, where is the version John told us they were hard at work at last year? Still nothing? Not even a leaked rumor?
 
John, you've told that the new Workstation version will bring new features to the Linux users.
I've been asking myself what features would that be, that other software haven't already release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top