Print this article | E-mail this article | Comment on this article

Major Parallels Desktop for Mac Update Ships

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

February 27, 2007, 1:11 PM

Parallels shipped a major update to its virtualization software for Macintoshes using the Intel platform. Although the upgrade would be provided at no cost to current users, those wishing to purchase the software will need to pay $79.99 USD.

Among the new features is Coherence, which allows Windows applications to operate like native Mac applications by appearing in the dock.

Also added in this version is Transporter, which allows the movement of settings, files, and applications from one virtual machine to another without a need to reinstall, and plug-and-play support for USB 2.0 devices.

However, in what is probably the most important new feature, those using Boot Camp will now be able to use the partition as a virtual machine within Mac OS X without a need to reboot.

Add a Comment (15 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

By mitra12

edited Feb 28, 2007 - 5:36 AM

I have Parallels (build 1970) on my iMac C2D, but I'm not getting any update? Do you have to register Parallels to get the upgrade?

Score: 0

By DudeBoyz

posted Feb 28, 2007 - 4:31 PM

I just had to download the Final version (3186) from the Parallels web site, and installing that DMG over the top of the existing version and it worked out fine.

Kinda odd that it doesn't auto-update, but at least that method works.

Score: 0

By DudeBoyz

edited Feb 27, 2007 - 7:20 PM

I got a MAC because I really enjoy using OS X. It's UNIX after all, very much like Linux only a bit more proprietary. It does handle fonts much cleaner and more consistently than Linux seems to (at least with Suse and KDE active). On Linux, FireFox 2 looks funny with the interface fonts being much larger than the standard font sizes on the desktop and KDE "start" menus and such.

I use Windows because I pretty much have to in order to run the apps I need to be able to interface with others and work collaboratively.

But OS X is wonderful, and so is Linux really.

I had an eMac and now my niece has that, because I wanted to get an Intel based Mac so I could do Boot Camp.

But then I discovered Parallels, and I'm telling you, it's very cool.

I still have trouble trying to use the clipboard inside Parallels to get data back and forth between OS X, Linux and Windows, but all 3 do run on the same machine at the same time, with OS X being the host.

Virtualization is something I just sort of discovered. I tried Virtual PC 2007 on XP, and even VirtualBox, also on XP. But Parallels on the Mac is actually much easier to use. It also supports high-resolutions with 24 bit color. Virtual Box on XP says it's limited to 800x600x16 bit due to "frame graphics" issues. I can't get Virtual PC 2007 on XP to install Suse 10.2 properly from an ISO. But Parallels on the Mac has been testing AWESOME for me. I can easily point to an ISO and it installs and reboots properly in the VM. I have Suse 10.2 rockin' and rollin' inside of the Parallels VM, with Samba file sharing and printer sharing working great too.

I'm glad I don't still have my G5 based eMac, cause I'd be screwed with no updated Virtual PC for the Mac.

It is nice that Parallels came out with a product for the Intel based Macs. I'm going to download Parallels for XP and try it on the PC side to see if it similar.

Score: 0

By DudeBoyz

edited Feb 27, 2007 - 1:23 PM

I'm half way through my 30 day trial with RC3 now, and it's pretty good.

I wonder why the Windows version is only $49 but the OS X version is $79?

I also wish they would come out with a PPC capable version, cause since Microsoft bought Virtual PC, Mac users have been abandoned by them.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Feb 28, 2007 - 3:03 PM

Supply and demand! Several companies sell a solution for Windows!
-->I wonder why the Windows version is only $49 but the OS X version is $79?

Score: 0

By cap737

posted Feb 28, 2007 - 1:02 AM

Dude, they can't. Virtualization uses the actual processor to get the speeds they need. You can't run Windows on PPC code except when using EMULATION software such as Virtual PC.

Score: 0

By DJGM

posted Feb 27, 2007 - 4:26 PM

DudeBoyz wrote:
". . . since Microsoft bought Virtual PC, Mac users have been abandoned by them."

Thta's not strictly true. Microsoft axed development of Virtual PC for Mac, because better,
faster products for running Windows (and other non-Mac x86 OSes) on Intel Macs, had
been released in the shape of Parallels Desktop, and Apple Boot Camp.

My only concern with that, is that Microsoft ditched VPC/Mac somewhat prematurely,
when most Mac users have not yet upgraded from PowerPC Macs, to Intel Macs.

Mac users haven't been abandoned by Microsoft. The Redmond based software giant
has already commited itself to developing a new version of MS Office for Mac OS X.

The only other Microsoft applicationss for Mac that have ceased development and
support, are Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer. All of which doesn't
make much difference, since those apps weren't much cop anyway!

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Feb 28, 2007 - 3:06 PM

Yeah, means that lots more people are going to buy Macs, specially when Intel version of Photoshop shows up.

--->when most Mac users have not yet upgraded from PowerPC Macs, to Intel Macs.

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Feb 27, 2007 - 1:47 PM

Why would you want to run Windows on a PPC Mac? Do you know how incredibly slow that would be?

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Feb 27, 2007 - 3:08 PM

Why would you want to use a Mac? Oh, that's right because of all those incredibly witty Mac vs PC commercials.

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Feb 28, 2007 - 2:00 AM

I don't have anything against Macintosh computers. All I'm saying is if you want to run Windows programs on a Mac, you're better off doing it on an Intel Mac instead of running them on a Power PC based Mac.

Score: 0

By DJGM

posted Feb 27, 2007 - 4:27 PM

And so, yet another Mac Bashers vs Mac Fanboys battle commences!

(YAWN!)

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Feb 28, 2007 - 3:07 PM

Most bashing would not happen if people who didn't actually have anything constructive to add simply didn't post anything at all.

(Can you say "self-referential posting"? [grin])

Score: 0

By Anastasia2007

posted Feb 27, 2007 - 10:52 PM

(Yawn!)

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Feb 28, 2007 - 9:25 AM

This really has nothing to do with hating Macs, although I'm not really partial to them if you must know, although I have used them from time to time. My main problem is the offensive and misleading advertising that Apple insists on which is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Ok it's a free country, I'm exercising my displeasure with it. So sue me.
BTW you both sound like you need some rest.

Score: 0

Jul 18 - 6:18 PM ET Has Google's relentless growth finally stopped?

Jul 18 - 5:48 PM ET IBM software sales help spur 'powerful' $26.8 B quarter

Jul 18 - 5:17 PM ET Zumobi widgets slide on over to BlackBerry

Jul 18 - 5:00 PM ET One admin's missing password leaves San Francisco in a lockdown state

Jul 18 - 4:15 PM ET Nokia readies touch smartphones for release this year

Jul 18 - 4:11 PM ET Another rocky quarter for AMD: More losses, executive shuffle

Jul 18 - 4:06 PM ET Slowing PC market, another online reinvestment ahead for Microsoft

Jul 18 - 3:01 PM ET Rural wireless carriers seek the return of spectrum caps

Jul 18 - 2:34 PM ET Sony to offer 'Graphic Splash' for select Vaio FW notebooks

Jul 18 - 1:01 PM ET What console war? Latest NPD numbers claim everyone wins