There are 2 things keeping me from buying Parallels: -Support to 64-bit OSes not working (working fine on VMWare Fusion) -Support to Vista Boot Camp partition not working(experimental support on VMWare Fusion) Coehernce was the killer feature that was making me very interested on Parallels but it seems there's a similar technology on VMWare Fusion Beta 4 now. Do you think VMWare is going to win this battle? I really like Parallels and I want to use it but... Other than that, have anyone tried XGL/Beryl/Compiz on Linux VMs using Parallels? The 3D Graphics support only works for Windows? Have anyone have any idea when Parallels is going to offer support to 64-bits guests and 3D Graphics on Linux?
I don't see any winner coming out of this. Both products will continue to mature and the problems, those that have solutions, go away at some point. Once the wrinkles are ironed out the real challenge will be to virtualizing itself. If Microsoft decides to play rough they can create restrictive licensing that will make this technology irrelevant for Windows users. In Vista they've already opened that door as explained here: http://forum.parallels.com/thread11690.html I expect to see a Digital Rights Management layer soon enough that will prevent unauthorized use of Windows in virtual machines. It's nothing new to the Bill: http://www.digibarn.com/collections/newsletters/homebrew/V2_01/gatesletter.html
What about XGL? Is the support to the Linux eye candy XGL effects using Beryl or Compiz planned for a near future? It would be great to have the cool desktops effects on a Linux guest on my Macbook Pro (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.33 Ghz with 256Mb Video and 2Gb RAM)
A DRM layer to prevent use of (future versions of) Windows in virtual machines? If Microsoft really does this (and I know they can), then for me it will be another good reason not to upgrade. I do not use Vista because of its DRM "features". The reason I use Parallels and VMware Workstation (on my PC) is to run Windows programs and for that older versions such as 98/2000/XP suffice and there is no need to use Vista and any future version. So Microsoft can expect no further revenue from me.
When I run Unix systems, as I do for a living, I use a shell. You don't need 3D for bash. Only one of the 8 Unix Sun servers I own and operate even has a video card, and there's no keyboard or monitor attached to any of them.
Well, you run your unix systems the way you prefer. I like the GUI and all the ease of use it provides me. In my opinion, if I have the computer power and the graphic features available I wanna use it and test it. I like nice graphics and that's why I bought a Mac. XGL is a great Linux feature and if you think it's only a waste of time then you should review your concepts. XGL is the Linux future and a great feature that could bring more users to the Linux world.
Wonder what MS's motive would be? Using Parallels or Fusion you still buy Windows? MS is still selling Windows. What do they care what you run it on?
MS needs to permit virtualization -- they are also selling a virtualization solution on the PC side. If they didn't, VMware would be out of business and MS would never have purchased the Virtual PC technology to build their own virtualization environment.
Parallels and Fusion I have purchase parallels 3.0 and do like some of the features. Fusion also does perform rather well and the fact that its free and still in beta. So far the big difference is Parallels likes to tax on my CPU fusion not as much. A lot of my applications do hang sometimes like ie7 and in fusion Unity if far more superiour. Fusion doesnt seem to be buggy at all. I actually hate to say it but it runs alot smoother. Expose work nice because every window show on its own. (If parallels does that I cant figure it cant figure it out.) I like parallels and hope to stick with them but if VM is doing better I cant say I will stay even if I did pay for 3.0. Thing that need to be worked on.... 1. CPU hogging 2. Coherence Nothing else I can think up but keep up the work DEV's
1) The EULA for Vista already has an artificial limitation for the cheaper versions of Vista. Expect this to get worse in the future. Some moron at MS has already said something like "Normal home users don't use VM anyway" which is no reason to stick a limitation like this in the EULA which normal home users don't READ anyway. 2) Just because MS has its own virtualization doesn't mean they won't try to find a way to prohibit other VM usage, or damage it in some way that makes its own VM solution preferable. They won't compete on a level playing field any longer than they absolutely have to.
I don't think they will prevent it - I think it will be a licensing issue with them. It has currently manifested itself as a requirement to use the approved (more expensive) version of Vista and it is an honor system now - the home edition can be installed. Going forward I fully expect it to be managed with DRM in the hypervisor.
