The folks over at
Parallels aren't messing around with these updates, as just about four months after unveiling
release candidate 2, the harmony-inducing software is just about ready to hit the big three-o. At long last, the new iteration will purportedly support 3D graphics acceleration, giving Mac users the ability to play OpenGL / DirectX-based games in Windows without having to reboot, and it sounds like you'll be seeing improved shared folder performance as well. Moreover, the SmartSelect integration tool allows you to "open up any file from Windows or Mac
OS X using an application from either operating system," which should work nicely alongside Coherence, and the Snapshots feature helps you to store Parallels' virtual machine state so you can roll back when needed and "control levels of integration and isolation using the VM Sentry." Apparently, the software isn't quite ready to hit the masses just yet, but early birds can latch onto the $39.99 upgrade price if you act quickly, while customers who bought in after May 1st will be blessed with the upgrade gratis.
[Via
Macworld]
posted Jun 1st 2007 10:29AM
that's cool, but there has got to be a drop in performance, so sure you'll get to play your PC games on the Mac, but it won't be the same.
I'm kinda peeved that there's an upgrade fee for this because I was assured by Ben at Parallels that 3d was "coming soon" before I bought the 2.0 license. But I guess the $40 isn't so bad if it lets me play Oblivion without a reboot...
why are you peeved if you were told it was coming soon and it has but you bought then anyway? that makes no sense lol, anyway, this is good, esp for cad etc, aero, im lucky, the only thing i use parallels for is zbrush beacause the update for windows is out before the osx version (which i can forgive them for)
Oblivion, on a Mac, using emulation software, are you kidding? There is no way that you'll get anything like a decent framerate.
can the ppl that make this get me an app to play directX 10 games in xp? PLEEEEEEEEASE???!
i hope they aren't going to shaft me after they had a deal where they would give us free upgrade for 1 year.
That probably means 2.x upgrades, not to a new version number.
You are getting the 3.0 upgrade for free, I read it on the official blog this morning.
I agree with Charles Bandes. I just shelled out the $79.99, and immediately after that installed the 3 or 4 beta releases. Now wham I have to pay again.
Unfortunately I need Parallels to run Windows Server 2003 VM's and they are dog slow. It seems their focus is on virtualizing XP/Vista.
Yeah, there is going to be a big drop in performance running two os's and a game at the same time. If you are a mac owner but want to play PC games, you'd be better off using bootcamp or (!) buying a real gaming pc.
"If you are a mac owner but want to play PC games, you'd be better off using bootcamp or (!) buying a real gaming pc."
That's right. Use your Mac for productive work and use a real PC for what it's good at--games.
I've got a MBP with the 2.33Ghz dual core processor and 3gigs of ram. Wouldn't that be enough to make up for any kind of performance drop?
Very true statement if you get a hard-on for frames per second and maximum performance. However, if you're just a casual gamer and don't' need every ounce of juice possible to play your game, it's a good solution for a lot less money.
However, Parallels works really well on my Mac Pro 3Ghz x 2. I imagine I won't be disappointed. This will be a nice upgrade.
I'm sorry to say this but no... Sadly your MBP only has an Ati x1600 vid card in it. Yes your CPU is slightly above the mainstream C2D, however, you need a better graphics card to make back any of that lost performance.
Er, what? the X1600 is still a pretty good graphics card, sure it wouldn't handle crysis at tolerable frames (well it might actually...). I had that card on my gaming machine for many months and it ran oblivion just fine. And without a doubt it can run older games.
The main problem in performance is how parallels will do it, and that's most likely where the performance drop will be. I'm still looking forward to it though, to me, booting into windows on my macbook pro just seems like a sin. But that's just me :P
PCs can do everything a Mac can do. The only difference is that a PC can play games like no other.
not really
I'm with Tom on this one. It's great that Macs are coming around, but if your goal is quality performance, try using the system they were built for.
Actually my experience with 3D games in a virtualizer has been quite positive - HOMM5 runs in WINE at about the same speed the windows version runs in boot camp. We'll see how well Parallels 3 handles Oblivion, but I am optimistic.
(Yeah, I know that upgrades cost money, it's just that 3D support was promised for the free 2.5 update, and then yanked at the last minute.)
Benchmarks have found that parallels runs apps about 99.5% as quickly as a single OS bootcamp boot as long has you have enough RAM.
Since games in general can't take advantage of dual-cores yet the fact that parallels only utilises one (and leaves the other for OS X) won't really be a factor.
With a little luck and some GPU switching trickery, games could run ALMOST as quickly as if you hand just booted into XP - well, I can hope.
VMWare Fusion...FTW!!
i tried Parallels (twice) and could not boot my Vista Boot Camp partition. with VMWare Fusion, it booted on the first try.
I think you have to run a tool to 'translate' the VMWare volume to a compatible format. I don't think it runs right off the bat y'know...
Will this release finally support the 64bit platform?
Pretty dissapointed that they're leaving all 2.x users behind with a buggy product that doesnt do all the things we were promised when we bought it.
Yeah, use your MAC for productive purposes like chris. You can make fliers for your favorite emo band in iTunes or make a terrible Youtube video.
The main reason I am waiting for Santa Rosa. I don't want to run XP with less than 2GB and I don't want to run OS X with less => need 4GB.
I think this will be more than perfect for me. I just hate it when games go in full screen mode in XP and don't offer any alternative. With this, it seems I can just run all of WinXP in a nice window - take that, full-screen games :)
Does anyone know if I can have 'real' virtual DVDs in Parallels? I want to get around that retarded SecuROM on one of my games - I refuse to install that crap so now I have paid for a game I've never used... [Yes, I am looking at you Atari. Suckers!! Shame on you.]
Mac guys don't play games anyway
They would if Macs could do it.
Does this mean the Aero effect will work with Vista through virtual?
always needing Windows I see.
CrossOver can already run Half-Life 2 and many other games on the Mac with only a small performace loss.
http://www.codeweavers.com/
Speak for yourself sean. Me and a couple other guys I know love mac but have to use bootcamp to play our games. I'm with shelterpaw on this one too, as long as my games run I don't need every once of performance available.
I hope the Linux version gets the same 3.0 3D treatment. If it does... XP just got turned into an application on all my systems.
Have any of you been using Parallels for PSP (Paint Shop Pro)? I have a friend that is currently using it on an OLD PC, then tried using it on a macbook pro, but performance was poor (and so was sharing). I'm wondering if this addition would improve software like that?
Experts anyone?
Why settle for lower framerates and incompatability with games. Just get a PC.
I've used macs numerous times, and I havent been able to do anything more than what I can already do on my other PCs. Except there's alot of stuff, and I mean ALOT that I couldn't do on a mac, namingly use my favorite video editing, art, and 3D creation programs, oh and I couldn't play any games other than little kid's crap. I don't see what the big fuss is about macs, people went to them because they had too many viruses, well that was they're fault, as I've been using PCs for more than 12 years and have never gotten a virus, or anything that limits my PC's performance, unless it was my own fault. Just no one wants to admit that the copy of doom on kazaa was a virus... etc. It's not that macs won't get viruses, it's that none of the things that got you the virus will even run on OSX
I'm tired of hearing that people who have macs are finding ways to lacklusterly play games on them, while they pay $213123123 for a new mac. Why not just buy yourself a PC and have fun with it, or even a linux PC.
Windows is a standard as of the 1990-2007, why not just use what's most compatible.
unkn, you appear to be quite uniformed. As a person who owns several Macs along with several PCs and a Mac with BootCamp and Parallels, I can tell you that not only is your statement wrong, it is completely reversed. You are talking about Parallels as if it is the only way to run Windows apps/games on a Mac. Parallels is merely an alternative to BootCamp, a way to make running Windows only programs much easier and more convenient. Start up BootCamp and your Mac IS a PC and can do ANYTHING A PC CAN. It can run all the games full speed, along with your favorite video editing, art, and 3D creation programs. (odd programs to bring up though since those happen to be Mac specialties)
"I've been using PCs for more than 12 years and have never gotten a virus, or anything that limits my PC's performance, unless it was my own fault"
Your virus statement is also a very poor argument. You quite clearly state that you have indeed gotten viruses. I don't believe any one cares if it was there own fault that they got it. In fact it makes no difference at all, it doesn't make them any less harmful. You must also take into consideration that the vast majority of the computer using population do not have the knowledge to keep their computers safe. If everyone was smart enough to not endanger their computers, there would be less of a reason to create viruses, resulting in far fewer. The simple fact is that you and I, the people who are much more in depth with the technology of today, are the minority.
On a final note, your statement on price is also unfounded. Macs cost no more, and in many cases less, than a PC of similar specs. The only real difference cost wise is that Macs do not have many low range options, but unless you want super cheap you can easily find a Mac in your price range. One last thing. One little pet peeve of mine is use of the "word" alot, something you did multiple times, even putting it in all caps. Alot is two words, not one, and typed properly would be: A lot. Maybe if you had a Mac, which automatically underlines misspelled words in red much like in Word, you would have picked up on that error before you submit your post. The red underline works on any word you type, in any program. It is one of the many features that makes the Mac life so much simpler.
Actually you have failed to give correct responses as to what I have said. You can build a PC, you can throw away a mac. And you said that you can use bootcamp to change OSs making your mac a PC, but what I said, is that MOST people will not use it, nor will know how.
If I were to go down to my local PC shop, and just grab all of the latest parts, quad core CPUs, 16GB ram, Quad SLI GPUs, latest wifi PCI card, mobo, etc.. would it run on OSX? or XP/Vista? And that right there is what I've said above. Macs are for squares...
How long until this comes to Windows?
This won't come to Windows. Its more or less a program emulator to run Windows programs on Macs.
Mac can handle just as much and more than ANY PC. Just look at the new 8 core Mac Pro! What other consumer PC has that right now? NONE! The problem is that even though Mac is based on a stronger platform (UNIX is stronger you can NOT deny that), Windows is still the major OS. As more people realize how much Windows sucks (I have both a Mac and a PC so I am not biased), more programmers will start to write programs for Macs. So yes Windows ARE better for running games right NOW, but that is ONLY because Windows is the major OS. Macs are better computers, just not as popular.
@S2Hedgehog:
I'll grant you there are some decent pro-mac arguments, but you take a few things a bit too far. As an example, the old price argument is mostly dead - for initial purchases. Cost of ownership for a PC, though, is going to be somewhat less. You have to shell out for Parallels or (gulp!) a full copy of XP on top of paying for any games you might want to run (trying to keep this relevant). Also, keeping a PC up to date in terms of hardware is considerably less expensive - in 2 years I'll be able to add a BluRay drive to my PC for probably $150. You'd need to buy a new Mac. Ouch.
You're right, tho, there are no low-cost options available for Macs. Which is a total shame, as most of the people buying the $399 or $499 Dells really could do with something as virus resistant and simple to learn as a Mac. Some people should NOT be allowed near something as . . . 'touchy' as Windows. And Apple would be able to rapidly grow their install base, too.
Also, the neat red underlining feature is available to PC's, too - you just need to use firefox, instead of (shudder) IE.
@TM: "Just look at the new 8 core Mac Pro! What other consumer PC has that right now? NONE!"
errr . . . Mac Pro's aren't consumer products - hence the 'Pro' in their name. The hardware platform is the same as PC, you can run windows on 8 cores, too, if you want to get a dual socket mobo - it's just not a common option. Check out the Alienware MJ-12® 8550i as an example of this. Same market, equivalent hardware (except the 8800GTX option!). No more a consumer PC then the Mac Pro, but no less 'consumer', either.
Wow, what's up with all of the Mac hayters in the place? It's obvious that they haven't spent much time, if any, using a Mac, because they're spewing so much mis-information. Seriously, if you don't like using a Mac (or Windows), fine. I can respect that. Please don't make up stuff that you can't substantiate. And don't hate on the Mac simply because it's the most versatile platform on the planet.
CAN IT RUN VISTA WITH DIRECT X10? I DON'T THINK SO AND I DONT KNOW IF THE MAC WILL LET YOU INSTAL A CARD THAT CAN SO HOPE FULLY THAT WILL COME IN THE NEXT RELAESE.
They got your money for a game you don't play. Sounds like you're the sucker.
You can, in fact, upgrade your Mac desktops. I'm not sure where you get your information from. Since he is speaking about his Mac Pro, which you were quick to point out, he will in fact be able to upgrade to Blu-Ray or whatever it is once he feels like doing so assuming that they are compatible (and if Apple is going to put any into their product line, then they will be available).
For example, my superdrive in my G5 tower has pretty much bit the dust after 4 years. It barely functions as a burner anymore for whatever reason. For less than $30 I can upgrade to a new superdrive, have the functionality back, and get a very large speed increase at the same time. Do I have to buy a new Mac Pro for it? Nope. My G5 still has a lot of life left in it (assuming Apple doesn't pull one of it's classic support-dropping moves... again). How about a graphics card? Same deal. RAM? C'mon, everyone knows you can upgrade your RAM in your Mac. HD? Same deal. Macs ARE upgradeable, even iMacs.
As for the cost of ownership issue.. I largely agree that you will have to fork out more money to buy Parallels, XP, and all of that. Don't most PCs need some sort of anti-virus software? Macs don't have to purchase that.
There are low-end Macs. They're used, you can find them on eBay. Just because Apple doesn't offer brand new low-end Macs doesn't mean you can't get a low-end Mac. Dell and the like offer old stuff that they couldn't sell. Apple doesn't. In the end, it's essentially the same thing. You can always get a refurb.