Filed under: Enterprise, Software
Parallels Desktop 5 ships with a host of new and improved features
There are two kinds of people in the Mac world: those who sometimes need Windows, and those who don't. If you're one of the latter group, feel free to skip the rest of this post.Parallels 5 for Mac has been released, with Snow Leopard compatibility, Windows 7 support, full support for Aero, including Flip 3D in Windows Vista and 7 & OpenGL 2.1 and a host of other new or improved features. You aren't limited to Windows either; Parallels also adds support for OpenGL 2.1 support for Linux guest operating systems. (Although we're a Mac site, I'm glad to see other OSes getting some development attention too.)
It is a free upgrade for those who purchased version 4 on October 1st, 2009 or later. Others will have to pay $49.99USD to upgrade, or $79.99 for a new license.
Parallels is also offering crossgrade licensing to VMware Fusion 2 users. If you have a license key for Fusion 2, you can get Paralells 5 for the same $49.99 upgrade fee as existing Parallels customers.
If you're new to Parallels, check out their introductory video for an overview of how it works.
If you need Windows to go with your Intel Mac, there are a lot of options: Parallels, VMware Fusion (which also recently released a new version), Boot Camp (although Apple isn't yet supporting Windows 7 in Boot Camp), CrossOver, and if you're willing to do a little more "nerd work" to set it up, you can even set up Windows virtualization for free with Sun's VirtualBox tool (well, "free" plus the cost of Windows).
Parallels and VMware Fusion seem destined to be the dueling "favorite flavors" of Windows virtualization on the Mac like Coke vs. Pepsi or vanilla vs. chocolate. Which is the right one for you? Download a demo and take a look. I own both Parallels and VMware Fusion, and look forward to putting them both through their paces with Windows 7.
Thanks to everyone who sent this in.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Karl Armstrong said 10:22AM on 11-04-2009
I don't think it's really accurate to say vBox requires more "nerd work". It does not offer the same features (mostly in terms of desktop integration) or performance as the commercial offerings, but setup is still pretty easy.
That said, I still think the other options are reasonably priced if you use Windows more then once in a blue moon.
Reply
TJ Luoma said 10:28AM on 11-04-2009
Anil's instructions involve entering some very specific, cryptic looking (to those unfamiliar with the command-line) commands into Terminal. Compared to the "three click" all-GUI install of the others, it qualifies as "a little more nerd work" in my nerd eyes.
Dave said 1:35PM on 11-04-2009
@TJ
I'm not so sure. I've been using VirtualBox for quite some time and have set up multiple machines, including Windows 7. I never had to do any "terminal work" as you say. Everything was setup in about five button clicks.
I, at my own choice, have used the terminal commands of VirtualBox to do things like cloning or compacting virtual machines, but those tasks are not in a average person's workflow.
Honestly, I really do not get where you're coming from with your perspective of VirtualBox. It's an excellent, free solution and easy to set up. Unless someone needs something extra (more graphics acceleration, for instance), VirtualBox would probably be quite sufficient.
TJ Luoma said 1:55PM on 11-04-2009
@Dave: re: "Honestly, I really do not get where you're coming from with your
perspective of VirtualBox."
I'm coming from Anil's post which I linked to (and it was he who said that the Terminal commands were necessary, I was merely quoting him). VirtualBox was not the emphasis of the post, so don't read too much into my comments here about it. I haven't tried it myself because I haven't had the time or need.
kiltbear64 said 10:21AM on 11-04-2009
It's cool that you send folks to Anil's website, but I think it's kind of odd that you don't mention the free solution by name directly: VirtualBox.
It's free and not really geek-focused anymore than VMware or Parallels. You can install guest OSes as easily in VirtualBox as you can the other two, and for me it has become my preferred VM?
Why? Cuz it quits (freezes) and starts (thaws) at least 5x faster than what I was experiencing in Parallels. The network handling is not as seemless though.
Reply
TJ from TUAW said 10:25AM on 11-04-2009
You're right, I should have linked to VirtualBox. Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.
Dennis said 2:07PM on 11-04-2009
I guess the main difference is that Anil's post says you need to setup BootCamp, which is not really necessary. I had Windows 7 installed in a couple of mouse clicks.
Tim said 10:22AM on 11-04-2009
I'm tired of buying Parallels every 6 months for 50+ dollars each time. I feel like we're being nickled and dime for small features that should just be expected - Like OS Upgrades.
Reply
William said 10:58AM on 11-04-2009
Seconded.
TJ Luoma said 10:59AM on 11-04-2009
I did a little checking, and Parallels 4 came out almost exactly a year ago. Since then we've had a major upgrade to Windows and minor-but-not-insignificant upgrade to OS X. I'm not a developer, but I assume that dealing with new "host" and "guest" operating systems involve significant programmer time and energy.
That said, VMware is only charging $40 for their upgrades rather than $50 (both start off at $80).
Of course if you want to avoid upgrade costs altogether, it sounds like http://www.virtualbox.org/ would be a good choice.
KomputarGuy said 11:00AM on 11-04-2009
Yeah I agree, I'm getting sick of it.
mentalsticks said 11:09AM on 11-04-2009
@TJ Luoma
There's not so much that's new in v.5 – especially things that SHOULD've been present in v.4 already. $50 is steep. I'm not doing it again. I'm spending more on Parallels than on OS X.
Ruben said 1:43PM on 11-04-2009
I upgraded v3 to v4, with the hope it will be the one that works as they promised. No same error again. And upgrade is expensive vs. new version!
Dan said 10:30AM on 11-04-2009
Gee, 5 already? I'm still breaking in 4!
Reply
aaron said 10:36AM on 11-04-2009
I ran benchmarks for a stock Windows 7 install in both Parallels 5 and VMware Fusion 3 and Parallels won the battle in all categories, so I'm sticking with it for now. I'm upset to pay the large upgrade fee, but the performance difference I've noticed since upgrading from 4 is fairly significant.
Reply
blachole said 11:05AM on 11-04-2009
hmm this is what I was afraid of since I installed VMware Fusion 3..guess I'll try out Parallels 5 now..
kiltbear64 said 3:05PM on 11-04-2009
What do we need to do to get you to try it out on VirtualBox as well?
Brad said 10:40AM on 11-04-2009
I just installed this and it's fast. I also like the new interface you can apply to make your windows look like mac.
I'm a fan.
Reply
Ferdinand said 5:01PM on 11-04-2009
I just installed it too. First I had the annoying Blue Screen of Death on two Macs (Solution here: http://kb.parallels.com/en/6873)
My first impression: Windows starts much faster and it runs faster.
DMD said 11:07AM on 11-04-2009
I was just testing out version 4.0 this week because I needed something after I finally upgraded to Snow Leopard…..this is cool that they've updated it right from under my nose. Heck, I was happy with the speed increase with 4.0.
Reply