Nice! I didn't know that, thanks.
now if they can also do it the other way around, a pause button for the OSX it would be great.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Parallels v 3.0 Released
- Thread starter matperk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nice! I didn't know that, thanks.
now if they can also do it the other way around, a pause button for the OSX it would be great.
To migrate from Parallels to fusion:
- If not already so convert your source image to NTFS (convert /fs:ntfs)
- Download http://www.vmware.com/download/converter/
- Install VM converter tool within the Parallels VM you want to migrate
- Provide Parallels VM with sufficient free space to dump the VMware image e.g. External NTSF format hard drive**
- Run through the VMWare convert wizard to install the Parallels image
- run through the secondary step to prepare the output to be bootable from Fusion (there is no specific fusion option, I used the latest windows version as a guide).
- Once conversion processes are complete, shut down down the Parallels VM and quit Parallels Desktop - (First time I tried this I experienced a "Panic" which crashed my macbook Pro!).
- Launch VMWare Fusion and import the vm image
- see note on parallels Tools removal below.
NB** - The VM Converter utility does not like using Mac volumes - although I guess you could use a Parallels bare image and then mount it to access the converted image, for best performance use a native NTFS external hard disk.
Quick Note on Parallels Tools.
This can only be automatically installed from the VM if you are running it within Parallels Desktop, so you have a choice, either remove it before you migrate the image, or you'll have to do a manual un-install from within fusion. I did the later as I was not aware of this issue at the time I converted the image.
Viola! In under 30 minutes you can migrate. Speed depends on the size of your source image (Mine was only 4GB) and whether or not you are copying (converting) on the same physical hard disk.
My test used a windows 2000 Pro image, so I expect you will need to re-activate a WinXp image.
Hope this helps you.
You couldn't really pause OS X though because Parallels is running on it
what I mean is have the OS of choice (that you want to run) suck all the resources needed, from the CPU to the videocard.
Please give us some links...
32-bit games vs 64-bit games? 32-bit games on 32-bit guest vs. 32-bit games on 64-bit guest?
Native vs virtual?
I find it difficult to believe that the 64-bit version of a game on a 64-bit guest running on a 64-bit host is "*much*" slower than the 32-bit version running on a 32-bit host.
I would expect "somewhat faster" - but "much slower" does not sound right.
I would honestly suggest sitting tight to see if somebody will get the open source Xen to work in OS X.
Xen benchmarks higher than Parallels and VMWare because it supports running multiple OSes at a much lower level using its hyperviser abstraction layer. Xen supports full virtualization, meaning that your virtualized environments will access your native hardware mediated by hyperviser. This is the closest we'll get to native speeds - Xen is basically like booting up multiple OSes simultaneously on boot. It is integrated with the OS rather than just an application like Parallels or VMWare.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear Apple announce Xen support in Leopard on Monday. If not, we'll have to wait and see when Xen will make OS X. To me, this is much cooler than VMWare or Parallels, as even with this new version of Parallels my sense is that Parallels is still emulating a video card, thereby providing only para-virtualization.
With Intel's VT hardware, no kernel level changes are required to get Xen to work, although I believe Apple's EFI BIOS deal does not enable VT. A software update on Apple's part could remedy this though, I'm sure.
Xen benchmarks higher than Parallels and VMWare because it supports running multiple OSes at a much lower level using its hyperviser abstraction layer. Xen supports full virtualization, meaning that your virtualized environments will access your native hardware mediated by hyperviser. This is the closest we'll get to native speeds - Xen is basically like booting up multiple OSes simultaneously on boot. It is integrated with the OS rather than just an application like Parallels or VMWare.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear Apple announce Xen support in Leopard on Monday. If not, we'll have to wait and see when Xen will make OS X. To me, this is much cooler than VMWare or Parallels, as even with this new version of Parallels my sense is that Parallels is still emulating a video card, thereby providing only para-virtualization.
With Intel's VT hardware, no kernel level changes are required to get Xen to work, although I believe Apple's EFI BIOS deal does not enable VT. A software update on Apple's part could remedy this though, I'm sure.
Just downloaded and installed 3.0, entered the upgrade serial number with no problem, tried to enter my original serial number and get the message "Invalid Activation Key"
So I'm stuck now with no way to get Parallels running, brilliant
Anyone got any ideas?
i am having the same problem too!
i have a feeling that i have just wasted $40 for a code that doesn't work.
i have tried to contact parallels, but no response yet.
It's a mess for international customers
Sorry, it isn't going to work.
The upgrade you have purchased is not compatible with any of the international versions of Parallels, such as the UK boxed retail version.
I have managed to contact both the UK and US support staff and their only answer is to refund the upgrade. Unfortunately, they can't issue refunds
There is much more information here and here
Sorry, it isn't going to work.
The upgrade you have purchased is not compatible with any of the international versions of Parallels, such as the UK boxed retail version.
I have managed to contact both the UK and US support staff and their only answer is to refund the upgrade. Unfortunately, they can't issue refunds
There is much more information here and here
Fusion won't be more expensive than Parallels
Not sure why people seem to think that Fusion will cost more than Parallels. VMWare wouldn't be that dumb to come to market with a product more expensive. If anything, it'll be the same price or cheaper than Parallels. Let the competition begin!
Not sure why people seem to think that Fusion will cost more than Parallels. VMWare wouldn't be that dumb to come to market with a product more expensive. If anything, it'll be the same price or cheaper than Parallels. Let the competition begin!
Go to the VMWare product page ... the company either gives products away on the client side (which won't happen in this case) or charges an arm and a leg for products aimed at enterprise corporate clients. The company is a owned by EMC, which doesn't play in the consumer space. This will be a first for the company, I'm sure there's significant internal debate about whether they want to go to war directly with Parallels or shoot for a market niche, ideally one they are familiar with on the corporate side.
So it's really speculation on YOUR part that they will price it comparably to Parallels since they don't tend to do that. And what would be considered competitive with Parallels? Many of us have already dumped $120 into that product because of the upgrade. If VMWare has a Parallels 3.0 comparable client at release, they may figure $120 is a comparable price.
Actually they all use the Intel processors' built-in virtualization - it's just that VMware and Parallels also have the ability to run on older processors that don't have those virtualization extensions, whereas Xen is more of a one-trick pony. The only benchmarks I've seen that reported Xen to be faster were run on older processors, where Xen only can work with OSes that can have their kernels modified (in other words, on older processors it can basically only run Linux and BSD) - of course Xen will be faster with its own extensions installed into kernel space.
As a matter of fact, Xen, EMC, and Microsoft are (theoretically) working together so their hypervisors are inter-compatible on the newer Intel chips.
Not true, you can run Xen on older non VT (and AMD's equivalent) hardware too, the OS would just have to support this with kernel modifications.
Xen actually only works with FreeBSD guests right now. Xen does not require kernel modifications for running on VT supported hardware. Check out the Wikipedia article on Xen.
Sorry, it isn't going to work.
The upgrade you have purchased is not compatible with any of the international versions of Parallels, such as the UK boxed retail version.
I have managed to contact both the UK and US support staff and their only answer is to refund the upgrade. Unfortunately, they can't issue refunds
There is much more information here and here
Good news at last
An upgrade is now available from Parallels for customers with the UK boxed retail version and the upgrade key from Parallels.
UK update
This version does work
Have any brave souls tried Lord of the Rings Online through Parallels? I am pleased to hear that people are seeing 9.x information in DirectX. If that's true, it would be a big jump over VMWare 8.x.
I think XEN is what is scaring the piss out of Parallels right now. Apple has a SOLID history of putting open sourced features into their OS. While ZEN wouldn't == game over it would put a definite dampener on Parallel sales. Not sure about VMware if they make the client really cheap or free. Again for me VMware's biggest feature is cross compatibility.
I don't think Parallels is emulating a vid card. What I think is happening is what happened in the days of predual core CPU's. Two OS's sharing a single GPU is obviously going to run slower then if the virtualized envir had its own discreet GPU. Also I think Parallels is pulling a fast one with the games demoed.
As an example Quake that was being demoed. My money is on parallels doing some form of pass through for Open GL calls which would be a heck of a lot faster then using Direct X. Again IMHO Parallels is playing games with their customers.
I just finished backing up my Parallels VHD and removing Parallels. I'm going to give Fusion a shot because at this point Parallels really has irked me enough to try the other white meat.
A few answers here have come out, VMWare Fusion pricing has been set at $80. That places it squarely in competition (price-wise) with Parallels. To make it really hard for Parallels 2 users, they're selling pre-orders for $40 -- less than the Parallels 3.0 upgrade cost!
To those of you who, like me, purchased Parallels 2 very recently, I got this e-mail from Parallels this morning:
It goes on to provide a link and key for the Parallels 3.0
I just noticed this on the VMWare site:
----
VMware Fusion is now available for Pre-Order for only $39.99, which is a 50% savings over the suggested retail price of $79.99 when VMware Fusion is made generally available prior to the end of August 2007.
Your Pre-Order will include a final VMware Fusion license key that will be emailed to you immediately and your credit card will be charged. You may use this license key to run VMware Fusion Beta 4, any released candidate builds, and the final VMware Fusion 1.0 released product.
The pre-order program is valid until VMware Fusion 1.0 is made generally available prior to the end of August 2007.
Dont wait, Pre-Order VMware Fusion today!
----
So there you have it... it will cost the same as Parallels after the initial pre-order cost.