Parallels Desktop

I can't speak for Parallels Desktop, but, depending on the version of Fusion, and the new release of macOS / OS X, there were compatibility issues. The other thing to consider is, have you tried installing Mojave as a guest in both previous versions of the software (PD , Fusion?), that's usually where the new version makes a difference. Official support for the latest version of macOS.. I know people have been able to continue using the previous version in such cases, but it's not true for everyone.. With that said, I've upgraded to Fusion 11, mainly for the latest features, but more importantly bug fixes and security patches.

You're probably right. I haven't tried installing Mojave as a guest OS in Parallels—or Fusion, which I've also used from time to time. I'm running Mojave on an external drive as a test platform. One complication I can think of is that the Mojave installer reformats a hard drive or SSD in APSF format, without asking permission first. Inside Parallels or Fusion you would have fewer options to revert to HFS+. APSF doesn't work well on an HDD. So, for testing purposes, I cloned it to another partition in HFS+ format on an external drive. I'm not sure how you would manage that in a VM.

I haven't had any issues with my Fusion Drive being converted to APFS as of Mojave upgrade.. High Sierra also formats a VM's drive to APFS. There again, haven't noticed any issues. FYI, my Plex Media is on an external 6TB drive connected by USB 3, and Have been running it as APFS since High Sierra, no problems at all. Granted, it's not running an operating system from that drive, but still adding media and playing back media has been flawless, and the drive is still in good standing without any filesystem corruption.

Just some thoughts.

Professional testing shows that APFS degrades performance on mechanical hard drives and SSDs: https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/apfs-performance-lags-hfs/. That doesn't mean it won't work, but that it doesn't work as well. As this article demonstrates, APFS is slower on an SSD than on an SSD formatted as HFS+. That said, APSF offers many improvements over HFS+ and is clearly the future for Apple. Security is one of those improvements, but performance is not. And APFS is not yet compatible with Fusion Drives, like those on many new iMacs, not to mention my late 2013 iMac. If you spend the extra money for an iMac with an SSD, you're golden—in more ways then one. ;-)

The Fusion drive incompatibility was only applicable for High Sierra. Mojave has changed that. My Fusion in my late 2015 iMac was HFS+ until I upgraded to Mojave. Mojave converted it to APFS upon install. Has been working since release day of Mojave without issues.

I called Apple tech support on this one. I was told that APSF was not compatible with Fusion Drives. During the beta program a Fusion Drive could support APFS, but the release version has removed that capability. In my reading on the subject I found that some people could get it to work on a FD, but most had nothing but trouble.

Did apple support reference Mojave? This was the case for High Sierra. Craig, even confirmed at WWDC that APFS was working on Fusion drives in Mojave. It is possible The support documentation being referenced was still from High Sierra, and not updated yet. Apple is a large company.

You are correct about the beta and it being removed on the final release, but that was High Sierra. I have talked to people who keep up with Apple and the person said that Mojave requires that it's install be on APFS to work at all. I will double checking the information provided, but I think you are going by outdated information here.

Here are some articles regarding Mojave, and Fusion drives, and APFS:
https://eclecticlight.co/2018/06/04/apfs-will-finally-be-supported-on-fusion-drives-in-macos-10-14-mojave/
https://www.imore.com/macos-mojave-faq

That leaves me wondering whose information is out-of-date. Because I cloned the APSF install of Mojave to an HFS+ partition and it works just fine. Nor can all the reports of APSF not working on Fusion drives be wrong. I grant I may have confused the status of APSF on High Sierra and Mojave, but Apple has done nothing to clarify the situation. The tech support person I talked with this morning took some time to research the issue so he wasn't just talking off the top of his head. Though he said he hadn't heard the question before, if that adds any clarity.

As for those articles about Mojave, they say that APFS will be supported on Fusion Drives, not that it is. Apple is well known for changing their mind at the last minute. I could find nothing current on the question on the web, or on Apple's web site, which is why I called tech support. So out-of-date information may be all there is. Few of us know any Apple insiders to consult, by the way. No disrespect intended, but secondhand information isn't much to go on. So, caveat emptor. If it works for you, then great. I'm not willing to go there yet.

As for installing Mojave in Parallels (of Fusion), a clean install wouldn't tell me much. My test platform uses a clone of my main system and my internal drive doesn't have room for a VM that large—which is why I use an external drive for testing purposes.

I agree with what you are saying, and as far as PD and Fusion, that's a different issue. I just wanted to close this conversation in saying, that according to Google search, there was no direct information to be found on the subject, that's what I was going for. As far as the iMoore article, there are people who work there, who also do MacBreaWeekly which is a TwitTV show which is a reputable source, so that was the best source I was able to find in the circumstances. As far as Apple insiders, I'm not a paying developer, but I did do the public beta program for Mojave. Anyway, for now what I offered the best I could to help. Hopefully official documentation will show up soon, just for clarification. Have a great day / evening!

Whilst I have complete sympathy with your position and don't condone such an inflexible approach to upgrades from Parallels, at the same time, just saying "buy VMware instead" isn't the right answer. VMware has *NOT* been there "forever". In fact, Parallels was the first on the Mac platform by several years, and it shows in the quality of the products. I've used both a lot, across their history, and VMware is consistently FAR BEHIND Parallels in terms of both features and performance. I know that not everyone agrees with this assessment, but in my own experience, comparing Parallels Desktop with VMware Fusion, Parallels has consistently been the best, time and time again. One might have certain minor quibbles with individual versions etc., but Parallels is quite simply by far the better product in my personal experience. Also, on the occasions when I've found a bug and needed tech support because of it, the Parallels people have always been really helpful (i.e. they've worked with me in detail to find the issue and have fixed the bug). So that's my experience, for what it's worth: unusually positive on all levels (enough for me to want to write this in response to your comment).

The version upgrade fee is $50, not $80. Also, I run Parallels on two home Macs with one license. So huh?

@Derekcurrie:
yes, $50 for upgrade sorry for mistake, but are you sure it's legal to run paralles on two macs? because paralles support told me, i have to buy 2 license if i want to do that, it's mac base license not user base, if you use on two mac you
need to buy 2 license

http://kb.parallels.com/en/112971

Note: In order to use Parallels Desktop for Mac on several Mac machines, you need to purchase the corresponding number of licenses. If you would like to move Parallels Desktop from one computer to another, you do not need to buy a new key, simply uninstall the software from the Mac it is currently installed on before installing on a new one.

As a past user of Parallels, I can confirm that the EULA is one license per physical Mac. I say "confirmed" because I have had multiple IT depts at multiple clients confirm that, to ensure compliance. You may use the same key on multiple macs, but VMware at some point may (and has done so in the past) pop up a warning that the key has been used to activate on another machine.

Users are allowed to MOVE/TRANSFER the license to another machine, in which case user is asked to uninstall on current mac, install on new mac, and use the same key. I'm not the software police, do what your conscience tells you or as you please, just stating the policy for those readers who work in environments where licensing is taken very seriously, like corporate enterprise.

Vmware Fusion EULA allows THREE physical Macs per license....just say'in.

And this week in July, 30% off sale this week of July 17, 2017, on Fusion, Workstation Windows and Workstation Linux, regular and Pro, direct from Vmware. https://www.vmware.com/products/fusion.html https://www.vmware.com/products/workstation.html
No I"m not a shill, just a smart consumer, who is not tied to any brand. It's about value for your dollar. Technically, both products are excellent and pretty much on par for 90% of users for what they need, so yes, price does factor, especially when there is little to separate technicallly.

Hi Sperling:) Actually there is another alternative to parallels, that I can higly recommend: www.parallel-desktop.com?EZE They provide remote Windows desktop accessible from cloud. The price is €8 per month, and you can subscribe whenever you need to use it and cancel the subscription if you know you're not gonna use it next month. There is a free trial available.

What is the replacement name that you are happy with?

"Perpetual" means that your license for Parallels Desktop 11 never expires. It's not a "subscription" that requires renewal as, for instance, is the case with Parallels Access. It does not mean that you will receive all future updates for free.

Hi Mastcell,

Perpetual means that it is a normal licensed version of the app. The upside to this is that you do not have to pay a subscription. However, you will not receive upgrades for the app in the future.

if you wanted something more in terms of a subscription version of the app, you can check that out here: http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/56644/parallels-desktop-for-mac-pro-edition

Fusion 8, released today adds windows 7 usb 3 support, i double checked the release notes.

if you read my post over on VMWare Fusions's entry on macupdate, I can confirm that Usb 3 works with windows 7 on VMWare fusion 8. Make sure to only use the Drivers VMware links to in the USB settings info.

Hope this helps some of you who feel stuck with Parallels and want fusion to feel better about switching.

Look here: http://www.parallels.com/techguarantee2015/. If you really bought your upgrade "only yesterday" you will get the upgrade to version 11 for free.

I installad and activated Parallels Desktop 10 yesterday and got already this morning an email from Parallels with download link and serial number for Parallels 11.

It was clear and well discussed on many websites since at least two months that Parallels would bring out a new version with better support for Windows 10 soon. That's why I waited till middle of August before I activated my version 10. (It was then pure coincidence that version 11 came out the next day.)

virgin de haas cbvnm kiol wsrfedqa cbvbnm ...vcbnm tgujyhbcvbnm ikol zzcbvbnm swqarfed bvnm juikoll cbvbnm ikolp vcbnm ikolcbvnm fryhtgvcbnm ikujolpo cbvnmcbvnm kipol cbvnm ik cbvnm kiolp cbvbn,kiolp cbvnm ikolp vcbnm ikolp cbvnm ikolp cbvnm ikolp vcbnm ikolp cbvnm ikolp vcbnm ikolp vcbnm ikolp cbvbnm ikolp cbvnnm

I have bought every version since Parallels version 4. Their Upgade-pricing is very bad for good customers. Within the official Support period I sent a detailed mail with request for help. They did not answer for days and when they did I had spent way too many an hours to fix the Problem, which was a serious one that was not resolved.. Their service is weak at times, even if their FA'Q is usually good. Unacceptable for paying users.

Derek, for whatever it's worth, I updated via the manually downloaded full installer and experienced none of the problems you did.

As for saying that Parallels support "never" got back to you, you posted this on the same day that the v10.2.0 update was released. In the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think [that word] means what you think it means."

Using just exchange rates as a basis for comparing product pricing internationally is misleading, because that assumes a product SHOULD cost the 'equivalent' in value everywhere, i.e. adjusts for exchange rates. I have a lot of international experience, and the fact is, in much of Europe, things simply cost more relatively to the US. Food, gas, services, etc. When I compare what a meal cost me in France for example, based on exchange rate, I often find I pay $20 US equivalent for a meal, that in the US, the same meal would only cost me $10 or $15 US. Europeans routinely pay the equivalent of $4-$5 a gallon for gas (when you convert from per liter price).

Secondly, prices in different areas get 'set' and the people are familiar with that local price and vendors don't change that as exchange rates fluctuate because it confuses customers. For example, the US upgrade price has been $49.99 for many years, during that time the Dollar has fluctuated wildly, but $49.99 is what US customers have become used to and expect. In general, Parallels isn't going to change that $49.99 or foreign prices in other markets as exchange rates fluctuate, UNLESS a particular currency just gets so out of whack that they are forced to make an adjustment or risk losing too much money.

In general vendors favor their largest market, and try to stay consistent in price for that market so those customers become familiar with a set 'expected' price, like the $49.99 example. If on the other hand, let's say I was a German software developer and primarily sold only in Germany, and i've priced my product for years IN GERMANY at 49.99 Euro, I'm probably going to keep it at that, regardless if my US customers have to pay more or less at any given time, depending on exchange, assuming that when the US customer makes a purchase, they are charged based on the exchange rate for the set German price.

So for the US customer, his 'price' in US dollars will vary based on whenever he buys and the current exchange rate. Now if my US market starts to grow, I may need to eventually 'lock down' the US price, let's say $39.99 US, to provide my US customers a sense of 'stability'. Overtime, the Euro and Dollar my dance around each other up and down, sometimes dramatically, but I may have no choice but to keep it $39..99 in the US and 49..99 Euro in Germany to maintain the perception of stability with each local market, even if it means in one market I may not be maximizing profit, OR by comparison overcharging (depending on what side of the fence you sit on).

Because of the HUGE investment in advertising and marketing (think of all the Parallel ads (online, print) and web click throughs and 3rd party sites advertising that they have no control over or even be able to track them all down. All of them showing the $49.99 price. A simple change in price has huge consequences.

Sometimes people jump to the assumption that there is a conspiracy to gouge or mislead customers, in my experience this is usually not the case, it's just basic business economics and marketing., cost etc. If at some point Parallels has enough business in Europe or Asia, they may have to 'lock down' a price in those local markets and stick to it.

Apple and other large companies address this by having local online stores in every country. So when you log in to apple.com from, for example France, based on your IP address, you get routed to the French Apple Store, with its own set pricing, which depending on current exchange may either be lower or higher in terms of 'equivalent value' compared to US or other countries.

Well I just checked the specs for Fusion and it also says it is limited to 64GB. So no point in buy Fusion.

What exactly are you referring to? I am running a mac os x lion VM on fusion pro 7 with an 80GB drive. I've never noticed a limit on how big I can make a virtual disk beyond a very large amount beyond the physical space I have.

My host is a late 2013 13" rmbp with yosemite 10.10.1 with 8 GB ram 256 GB SSD

I've always been satisfied with fusion. I did try parallels a couple years back with a trip, and found it to be quirky and frustrating to deal with for my particular needs. I will say I have more compared Virtualbox and fusion on my late 2013 13" mbp and have been once again very satisfied with fusion. Virtuallbox is good for a free solution but the environment isn't always stable for more heavier tasks such as video playback and other tasks that require graphics. It also doesn't do well with old x as a guest os. Currently i'm evaluating windows 8.1 enterprise and have had no issues with it, after i got used to the new interface. windows 7 runs well and os x guests also run well. Iv also been able to virtualize older os' such as windows 9x / dos without issues other then driver support for certain things, which is to be expected today with an older os. Linux runs well and i have to say one thing fusion has over paralells, at least the last time i tried it, was unity mode works withy any os with vmware tools support. Paralells seemed to only work with windows with that feature, and depending on how they've improved it, wasn't great with more unique legacy operating systems.

Anyway hope this helps, have a great day/night!

I have been a user of Fusion and PD since version 1 of each. I use both, both have strengths. In general, IMO, I find Fusion is much better at supporting OS X VMs, PD better (slightly) at Windows VMs.

If OS X VMs are important to you, use Fusion. If Windows is more important or if you want the fastest Windows speed, use PD.

Both charge $49 an upgrade, both have updates to their products roughly once a year. Both support support at any time at least two version of OS X as host with the current version of the product, typically the current OS X plus the one prior. For example, PD 10 supports OS 10.10 and 10.9, so contrary to all the comments you read on this site, you do NOT have to upgrade with every release of OS X, only if you want a specific feature, but you are not forced to. So, it doesn't necessarily mean $49 every year, you can easlily go two years before upgrading.