"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> __/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Monday 16 October 2006 18:31 \__
>> I played around with the Parallels demo, but I had a LOT of trouble
>> getting Linux (don't remember which distribution, sorry, but it was
>> *probably* Ubuntu 5) to run under it. Ironically, Microsoft's Virtual PC
>> worked a lot better for me. Ubuntu 5 works (but it was pretty slow); I
>> think some version of Fedora Core also worked. Ubuntu 6 doesn't seem to
>> work under Virtual PC.
>> Plus VPC is free (as in beer), while you have to pay for Parallels.
> Parallels wasn't quite ready for Linux until recently. It's natural to
> that VMWare, Xen and those other forks of Xen which are more mature would
> better (and cheaper).
Read for Linux as in read to virtualize a computer for Linux to run on,
or as in ready for Parallels itself to be installed onto Linux? AFAIK, when
I tried it (maybe 8 months ago) Parallels was advertised as being able to
run Linux. So I tried it, and it did not live up to my expectations.
> Your criticism (I assume it is a criticism) is like
> saying that Windows is flawed because it doesn't play nice and
> with my Linux boxes.
Perhaps an argument can be made for that comparison. However, from a
pragmatic viewpoint, the only reason I tried out Parallels was because I
wanted to run Linux in it. It is not the case that the only reason I "tried
out" Windows was because I wanted interoperability with Linux (instead, I
use Windows to play the games and run the apps that haven't been ported to
So given both the failing of Parallels to run Linux, and Window's
inability to interoperate with Linux, Parallels is now useless to me, but
Windows still serves a purpose.