![]() ![]()
I still use Fusion for small stuff (Office on Windows and various and sundry things on Linux), but I've taken to running native installs of both Windows and Linux on external USB SSD's for real work. At this point I've pretty much given up hope on that. Yep I've been hoping that Apple would join the 21st century and slip a visualization feature set into OS X as well. Give them some decent competition.īasically, if I'm going to be forced to pay once a year for Parallels then I want there to be a damn good reason for it, not simply "your operating system version is now X+1". Make it better than Virtualbox, without being as fully featured as VMWare/Parallels. PARALLELS WINDOWS 10 STUCK ON WELCOME SOFTWAREIt's this sort of behaviour that makes me wish Apple would write their own virtualisation software (as opposed to Bootcamp) and bake it into OS X. I don't know if they are going to keep raising prices and moving specific features that I need into higher tiers, or whatever. But given some of the shit that Parallels pulls, I don't know that I'm comfortable relying on them and making them a fundamental part of my development stack. It's one of those things that would be relatively easy to get an employer to reimburse, too. PARALLELS WINDOWS 10 STUCK ON WELCOME PROIf they've got really good Docker integration in their $99/year Pro version, I'm sure a lot of developers would have no problem paying that. And I was really turned off by this incident a few years ago. I also don't like the way that their Mac application occasionally displays popup ads. Moving standard desktop features into the more expensive "Pro" version is a good example of this. When they make unambiguously anticonsumer choices solely for business purposes, it makes it difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt. The way that Parallels conducts business makes me uncomfortable. I suspect that maintaining all of this deep integration between host operating systems and various supported guest platforms from version to version really does require a significant amount of engineering effort, and I'd honestly not have a problem paying annually for that, but. so I refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt. ![]() But I already know that they're willing to sell me software and then make me buy new versions just to keep doing what I've been doing, instead of providing basic patching of recently marketed versions. It's really new functionality (supporting a new version of Windows) instead of product maintenance (ensuring that existing customers have continued access to existing features). ![]() Parallels is still the only piece of software I've bought that just refused to even TRY to run on a new version of OSX, and instead demanded I buy the newest version even though I'd just bought the newest version less than a year ago. PARALLELS WINDOWS 10 STUCK ON WELCOME PATCHNearly every piece of software I use, if there's a problem with a new version of OSX, they put out a patch and it fixes whatever few bugs it has. I want to say it was a fairly minor point release too. I'm pretty sure that it could've run on the new version of OSX. Less than a year after I'd bought the software. Until a new version of OSX came out, and it broke Parallels. I could load XP, go in, look up stuff when I needed it, great solution for the price. I bought a version of Parallels to run XP on my Mac and be able to access a few old XP-based programs from my Windows-using days that didn't have great data export features. This is related to the thing that pisses me off about this kind of software. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |