Slashdot Log In
Parallels 3.0 Announced, 3D Graphics Included
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jun 01, 2007 04:04 PM
from the did-you-know-you-can-play-games-on-your-computer dept.
from the did-you-know-you-can-play-games-on-your-computer dept.
99BottlesOfBeerInMyF writes "For some time Mac users have been waiting to see who would bring 3D graphics to a Windows emulation/virtualization solution under OS X. It looks like Parallels is going to be the winner. They have announced an RC of Parallels 3.0, with the final to be available 'in a few weeks.' For anyone else tired of Bootcamp or rebooting to play a Windows game, it look like the solution is finally here; I'm not counting out VMWare entirely. Obviously it will depend on how soon they can catch up, but there is some serious first-mover advantage here for Parallels."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
VMware Fusion 2? (Score:5, Informative)
VMware Fusion *Beta* 2 (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Parallels? *YAWN* (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point of these tools entirely - they exist for people like me: die hard Windows/Linux users that have always been disdainful of the Mac for various reasons (for me it was gaming and learning curve, for others it was legacy application support, for others it was hatred of a one button mouse, etc).
Now there's a way I and the zillions of others who are now jaded with Microsoft can buy a sweet Apple computer that are all the rage now - all the kids are using them and they're all over the TV, so they must be good, right!? - with the confident knowledge that I can still boot to Windows if I need to, or use Parallels to run my games, or whatever.
I've been a die hard PC user since XT days but now the Macintosh is appealing to me specifically because of these features. I'm a lot closer to spending my $$$ on a Macintosh now than ever before, and many of my PC using friends have already made the switch.
You and the rest of the Mac guys don't have to pay any attention to it and can smugly assume superiority, but you might as well wait until everyone like me has already switched over!
Parent
Re:Parallels? *YAWN* (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It enabled me to finally convince my boss to dump his Windows box, for one thing. Without Parallels that would never have happened, because he thought he needed it. In reality there was not a single thing he does that required Windows, but this gave him the security blanket. And now he no longer switches to Windows at all.
Re:Parallels? *YAWN* (Score:4, Insightful)
Recently I've "moved" from Mac OS X to Ubuntu, because REALLY like having a system that updates all of my software on its own. I didn't move because Ubuntu is cool, or because Mac OS is crappy, but because it makes my job easier. Tools like Parallels will allow Windows users who want to move to Mac OS for whatever reason do so more easily, and that can only be a good thing for your chosen platform. Embrace the newbies
HOWEVER, having said that I can see your point about "Macintosh Explorer", I think my eyes might actually be bleeding that thing is horrible.
Parent
Mac users want Mac apps, not Windows ports. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm a Mac user. Yes, I demand that developers do things differently on the Mac than on any other platform. If they don't, I don't care if they get tired of me, because I don't want their applications.
You don't just install crap all over my Mac. I want a single, simple bundle that I can install using drag-and-drop, and uninstall by dragging it to the Trash. If you absolutely need to install additional stuff, then:
If you don't do that, your application will flop on the Mac. If you create an application for the Mac, make it a Mac application and not just a Windows port.
Parent
History repeating itself (Score:2, Interesting)
Emulating a mac went from a slow and laborious process to something almost realtime.
The price of this seems a bit harsh though, it pretty much doubles the retail cost of Windows, are Mac users that desperate for this functionality that its worth it?
Re:History repeating itself (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
are Mac users that desperate for this functionality that its worth it?
Most of them aren't. They'll either find a way to get Parallels+Windows for free, or they'll live without. That's not to say there won't be enough Mac users (which is to say, "enough to make a profit), but most Mac users probably won't bother.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
are Mac users that desperate for this functionality that its worth it?
To add my two cents here, I doubt many people are "desperate." But given that my MacBookPro is, far and away, the best laptop I've ever owned or used (and in many ways the best piece of any hardware I've ever owned), it's a relatively small price to pay for a great platform that does pretty much anything I can think of needing or wanting to do--and importantly--does it in a well-designed, well-thought-out, organized way that reduces the amount of effort on my part.
That being said, $80 still irks me!
uh boot camp still wins (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:uh boot camp still wins (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:uh boot camp still wins (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. If I can get 30 FPS in the games I want to play, I'll be happy. A few extra FPS that are ultimately irrelevant aren't worth a reboot, especially into Windows.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:uh boot camp still wins (Score:5, Insightful)
For you, Boot Camp makes sense. Me, I'm in the opposite situation -- I do almost all my work in OS X, but write apps which occasionally have to be tested with Windows. So Parallels is the perfect solution. I'm not really concerned about squeezing every ounce of speed out of Windows because I don't spend much time in it; I just want to drop into it every few days to make sure that what I'm doing works, preferably without having to reboot my machine.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, even if the penalty was something like a quarter as fast I'd still use it. That's way better than quitting what I'm doing and rebooting. Now that I think of it, even if it wer
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When the Intel Macs came out, and then Parallels, I dumped the PC and replaced it with an iMac, saved my dollars and dumped my workhorse QuickSilver for a bigger iMac. Parallels was *that* damn fast. I've never tried BootCamp and don't intend to (dual boot? please), so I honestly don't know what the pe
Re:uh boot camp still wins (Score:5, Insightful)
As you said, for people like you or gamers, Boot Camp is the way to go. "You and gamers" are not the majority of computer users, thus that is why "the rest of us" who need it will use Parallels.
Parent
Win98 gaming (Score:2)
Re:uh boot camp still wins (Score:5, Insightful)
First, it is virtualization, not emulation. I run Parallels because I need to use both Windows and OS X native applications to get my daily work. Rebooting 30 or 40 times a day would be less than productive. Also, maybe you're not understanding the workflow of many mac users. I don't shutdown my computer and I don't reboot. I rarely ever shutdown about 5 major applications. I am a casual gamer. I used to go to LAN parties with my laptop and play Warcraft 3 and amaze all the Windows users by not bothering to shut down Photoshop, InDesign, Firefox, and all the rest of my applications, because OS X's multitasking was up to it. I'm sure not going to shut down all my applications and close all my files and reboot my machine, just to play some game. That would be a huge pain in the ass. I will, however, boot up a Windows session in a window and play it there.
Most gamers are casual gamers, like me. We don't care if it is running 50fps instead of 40fps. We don't care if the textures are all at the highest settings. We just want to play a few games and have fun without a hassle. If Parallels will let me do that, I'd shell out for it. I can afford it. I'm a computer geek; we tend to be well paid. I say I would pay for it because, likely, my company will be buying my upgrade for me anyway.
The advantages of using OS X as the host OS are numerous, if you're the kind of person willing to learn new ways of doing things. It is an added level of security, and running OS X apps natively allows for more interaction between apps and more customization of features for all apps.
For games that don't use 3D acceleration, I don't even normally notice any speed difference at all between parallels and bootcamp. The limiting factor in all cases is memory, so running Parallels is like having .5G less memory. With the notice graphics card support, I doubt the speed difference will bug me at all. Like I said, I (like most gamers) am a casual gamer. In any case, claiming the speed cost is too high is a bit premature until it is actually tested, don't you think?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is you don't use software rendering. This can be a boon for cad that isn't as demanding as gaming, but still needs hardware gl to perform well. Apparently Quake 4 is running "full speed" whatever that means, so maybe removing the software rendering layer takes a large chunk of overhead away.
Re:uh boot camp still wins (Score:5, Funny)
At work I sometimes use Parallels to test web pages with MSIE. Type up some seemingly totally standards-compliant CSS or javascript in SubEthaEdit [wikipedia.org], save, mouse over to the memory-sucking Parallels window, click reload, stare in amazement at the unanticipated behavior, curse and snarl, pull out some hair, email the boss to ask if things really are required to work with MSIE 6, pull out some more hair, etc... all w/out rebooting.
About the only bad thing I can say about Parallels, is that it isn't curing baldness.
Parent
Re:uh boot camp still wins (Score:5, Insightful)
2. You're not the target market for this app. You only use OS X for Safari. Most Mac users aren't like you; we primarily use OS X, and are "forced" to use Windows occassionally for one app or game. This covers most switchers too; how do I know? We just switched our company, and everyone has the choice of OS X or XP. Guess what? OS X has won out on every user, and no one uses boot camp. Just Parallels.
3. Most people are willing to exchange some speed for security. Staying in OS X means you know that your computer will always work; no worrying about viruses and the like.
Parent
What about DX performance? (Score:4, Interesting)
Great work otherwise.
Linux Guest Tools too (Score:5, Informative)
Cheers,
Ian
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only cool if you want to play games (Score:2)
VMWare people, bring it on, release every zig! This is a market where we need some competition.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More importantly, what do these tools do? If I were to seriously consider running OSX with Linux under it in Parallels, I'd like to know what exactly this gives me.
Of course, Linux isn't the only other x86 operating system out there. The BSD family is, for instance. I know people who swear by the OpenBSD firewall tool, for instance. However, I ca
Is it worth it? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Damien
Re: (Score:2)
What version of DirectX? (Score:2)
VMWare Fusion does 8.0,which annoyingly doesn't work with alot of what I want to use it for... Does parallels do one better? All I need is 9 =-)
About time... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Informative)
Of all the elements in the system, the graphics interface once shouldn't run slower.
Its just mainly copying data around rather than executable assembly instruction translation/manipulation.
A block of allocated memory can be passed directly to the card without any messing.
Virtualisation is difficult because you are trying to act as middleman between two different operating systems with different ways to do things. However for the graphics, both those operating systems need to already speak the same language to talk with a graphics card, the memory is laid out the same, the commands are the same and the way of talking to it is the same.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Native booting into the OS is the only real way to get it done, unless you're doing something you can easily wait on (like post-process renderin
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people aren't even aware there's an option for that in the BIOS if the chip supports it. If you run it on a chip that doesn't come with virtualization extensions, you WILL suffer quite a performance hit.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't know where you get that idea.
VMWare, which is practically synonymous with "virtualization" basically doesn't benefit much at all from having VT enabled in the BIOS. Most of the overhead is associated with I/O, can be as much as 50% of the bandwidth and 65% of the latency, and for which turning on VT will help not at all. Don't believe me? Just run a database benchmark, like the Postgrest OSDB test. Or just try ftp
Re:hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
For native CPU & a pass-through OpenGL stack, it should be pretty close to native speed. Only concerns are:
1. Direct3D/DirectX (what's it called these days?) -- emulating that or converting it to the native graphics driver isn't trivial. Or even a direct mapping.
2. Feature differences between implementations of drivers between the mac & windows. My guess is that most of the big boys use common code in between (especially now) with build setups & wrappers for each platform. But, who knows.
Parent
Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
DirectX is a large set of libraries, with Direct3D being the graphics library in the package, with DirectInput being the input module, etc. Some games (id software games come to mind) use DirectX for a number of things, while still using OpenGL for graphics. The only confusion about the name is in your head, really :)
Regarding performance, it seems to me that even if there *is* a performance hit (and there probably will be), the purpose here is not getting the world's best gaming rig. I don't think anyone here is convinced any product in the Apple lineup will ever be that. The purpose is getting enough performance to run games decently without hiccups getting in the way of your fun. And I think it quite likely they'll succeed in that.
Parent
Re:hmm (Score:4, Informative)
Close. It wasn't OpenGL, it was GLIDE. and version 2. (click here [os-emulation.net] if you want to flash back to heady days of decent II and Dark Forces II)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Native operation:
Application -> (call to) -> DirectX/OpenGL library -> (call to) -> Native driver -> (low level call to) -> Graphic card
Parallels:
Application -> DirectX/OpenGL -> Parallels driver -> Parallels host (fixes coordinates) -> Native driver - Graphic card
Thus, in a way, you don't really decrease "bandwith", you decrease "latency" which is very minimal. I would gue
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)