Talk:Parallels Workstation/Archive 1

Patent
"Parallels uses its own patent-pending software virtualization technology which allows the execution of most of the original code directly by the hardware processor. This results in significantly better performance for comparison with pure emulators and binary translators; Parallels overall execution performance is very close to native execution."

Apart from exciting the attention of the apostrophe police, isn't this describing any virtualization product, like VMWare, Virtual PC (for Windows, on Intel) and so forth, all the way back to IBM's VM (first sold 30 years ago)? As it is this reads like marketing speak and should probably be recast to something more like "like other native virtualization virtual machines, this product...".

Thoughts? Notinasnaid 08:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole Implementation section is not NPOV and needs to be rewritten. The way it starts out discussing the disadvantages of an alternative product show that it is a sales pitch. --Afed 18:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy mother of POV BS contents...
In regard to the following bs: Parallels ... emulate the CPU, executing each guest instruction by calling a software subroutine on the host machine that simulates the function of that instruction. Such emulators are usually designed as a conventional user level application and can be platform independent. Because each original instruction is emulated, however, overall execution performance is very slow (as much as 100-1000 times worse than native execution).
 * Dynamic recompilation has nothing to do with emulation, this is not rosetta we are talking about
 * It's not emulating a different kind of processors, it's simply wrapping another set of instructions
 * Bosch or vmware are NOT 100 times slower, they work at 80% capacity min.
 * Parallels uses an Intel feature to make virtualisation easer, the core technology is intel's not parallel's

A more efficient approach is the binary translation technique (also known as dynamic recompilation). In this approach, parts of the original binary code are translated “on the fly” and stored in a special translation cache. Then, the translated parts of the code, rather than the original parts, are executed directly by the real processor. This approach is significantly faster than pure emulation and also allows the execution of guest operating systems on a hardware platform with different processor architecture. The overall execution performance of binary translators is usually 5-10 times worse than native execution.

Parallels uses its own patent-pending software virtualization technology which allows the execution of most of the original code directly by the hardware processor. This results in significantly better performance for comparison with pure emulators and binary translators; Parallels overall execution performance is very close to native execution. The drawback is that the guest OS must be compatible with the host CPU. This means that unlike an emulator, one cannot, for example, use Parallels Workstation to run older versions of Mac/PowerPC software on an Intel x86 processor.

Parallels Workstation is powered by a lightweight hypervisor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.178.16 (talk • contribs)
 * Please provide sources for the points you wish to present and/or clarify. --ZsinjTalk 17:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

ɟk

OPENSTEP support
I have heard that OPENSTEP only works in Beta 4 of Parallels Desktop (possibly earlier versions too, although I have not found any information regarding OPENSTEP on earlier builds). Could someone verify that it works in the latest version? Wikifan42 23:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice it?
The fact that the Mac community is so scared of a workstation... - Thekittenofterra 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Mac OS X section
Removed the section. The product lines are not similar anymore, and they've always been written for different platforms. The section as written was outdated and didn't add anything to the main article so I dumped it. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Physical drive mapping support
The ability to give a guest direct access to a hard drive is a future feature according to a search on their site. Go to the Workstation FAQ #4 or use this search: http://www.parallels.com/search?search=physical+drive

JWhiteheadcc 07:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OS/2 support
The article OS/2 claims that a bank contracted Parallels Inc. to develop Parallels Workstation, because other virtualisation software (eg. VMWare) did not support OS/2. I can't see anything about that in this article. If it's true, then there should be a large section dedicated to this. 203.5.217.3 05:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The above may refer to TwoOStwo, a virtual machine product originally designed specifically for OS/2 guests and which was created by (the original) Parallels Inc. prior to its acquisition by SWsoft. Parallels Workstation was presumably based on it, at least in spirit if not in actual technology. It would be nice to find a proper source for this so it could go into the article. 221.29.98.139 (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Logo
I've updated the logo and someone changed it back to the previous one, the red logo is from the company not from this product, as you can see on the user manual:, so don't change it back.

Unreal minimum CPU requirement
I wasn't aware anyone had even PRODUCED a 5ghz processor yet (other than maybe one or two extremely niche gamer-oriented parts maybe?!), and even 4-point-some ghz chips are relatively rare.

So that minimum 5ghz requirement is BS, isn't it. Anyone know what the real requirement is? I figure anything above 1.5, certainly 2.5ghz is highly unlikely... 193.63.174.254 (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)