Talk:Parallels Desktop for Mac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Apple Inc. / Macintosh  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Macintosh task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Citation tags in issue section[edit]

How can we cite issues or limitations of the software itself when its fact? Is this something that is really contested that they need the citation needed tag? I don't think so. You can read the release notes and know from those straight away that these features are not present. It looks messy. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 20:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You say that these known issues are "fact", yet how is a person who just browsed to this article going to know that, absent some sort of verifiable reference? If these issue are covered in the release notes or some other official documentation, then fine, throw in a link to the document. The problem isn't that these issues are contested; the problem is that, without valid references, it looks like we made it all up. Remember the text that appears below the edit box: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". Besides, it'll look a lot better once we include some references. — EagleOne\Talk 17:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bluetooth[edit]

Parallels can allow USB dongle-type Bluetooth adaptors. Specify this in the USB devices settings. Works right as rain; however, it will be slow (say, to sync a Palm).

---Christopher Graduate Student of Cell Biology and Biotechnology. Proud owner of a quad-core Mac Pro. Philadelphia, PA—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.199.229.215 (talkcontribs) 07:32, July 11, 2007 (UTC)

Info could be added, but as a work-around and not as proof that it supports bluetooth, since technically it does not. Remember, it's an encyclopedia. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 12:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have a link to a documented workaround, then we can add that to the article, but details of the workaround itself should not be added. WP:NOT. — EagleOne\Talk 17:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

bluetooth works on my macbook 86.2.102.241 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

Is this even significant, that they released source code late and that potentially irked a few open source advocates? If it isn't, then under WP:NPOV#Undue weight, it should be removed. hateless 22:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think to keep the article balanced and more importantly to be thorough it should remain. It's very short, factual and written in a NPOV tone. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 10:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember thoroughness is not WP policy, WP:NPOV#Undue weight is however. I can't even agree that it's NPOV, it does not include their side of the story (stated on their blog), and it elevates not-prompt compliance with a EULA to a notable occurrence. As a side concern, the blurb also is written like a piece of OR. It's not OR of course, but directly quoting the licensing agreement, stating WINE's conditions, and concluding it violates code, all without an source making the initial allegation, is synthesis. hateless 01:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
However it's followed up and concluded that the issue was resolved. I really don't see the problem. A good article (WP:WIAGA) should include criticisms. If it were to be removed, I have no doubt at some point someone will re-add the statement at some point because they felt the article was lacking everything relevant to the subject matter. What exactly do you find wrong with it? Maybe it could be worded differently? Nja247 (talkcontribs) 08:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that the problem is two-fold: the section, as it stands now, presents the Wine project's opinion, but not Parallel's response; and the controversy itself is rather minor. As you said, it was resolved within a couple of weeks. The "controversy" amounts to the fact that the modified source code wasn't turned over to the Wine project immediately, which is apparently what the Wine folks wanted.
To make the section a little more neutral, I just added a sentence on Parallel's response, and a link to a message on the official blog. — EagleOne\Talk 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism should not be included for the sake of criticism. As for WP:WIAGA, it states: "(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details." I'd like to see an argument that it is a necessary detail. hateless 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, well I disagree. It adds to the article and is relevant. Only irrelevant, POV information should be removed from wikipedia. It does not distract from the subject matter. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 09:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Updates/Beta subsection[edit]

First off, I agree with you that the beta release is an update, thus that is why it is a sub-section of the updates section. I do not understand why this is an issue since it was already part of the updates section? Regardless, the reason I believe it should be a subsection of the updates section and not simply listed as you had wanted it is because it gives the appearance that the beta build is a general release/update to version 3.0, which it is not; build 4560 is the only current general release/update to version 3.0.

Parallels clearly stated that 5060 is not a general release, as is for beta testing. Not having it as a sub-section confuses readers into believing 5060 is the latest update, which it is not as its geared towards beta testers.

From the parallels official blog announcing the beta (http://parallelsvirtualization.blogspot.com/2007/08/new-parallels-desktop-beta-starts-today.html): "Don’t forget that even though its pretty stable, ’’this is BETA code, and its not designed for production use. This also means that the beta isn't supported via our normal support channels (ie, phone support or email support). Our support teams can only offer help for production builds, like our most recent release, Parallels Desktop 3.0 build4560."

I hope that we can come to some type of agreement on this. Cheers. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 17:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, b5060 is in beta right now, but it won't be so forever; eventually it will reach general availability, at which point the Beta tag will be obsolete. Besides, the article already describes b5060 as a Beta, and the links clearly explain the update's beta status. Also, if you try to download b5060 from Parallels, you have to go through several pages that clearly state the risks of using beta software. I will captitalize Beta, and wikify it for neophytes who don't what Beta status means, but I don't see a point in putting it under a separate section that will just disappear in a month, or whenever the final code is released.
Besides, lone subsections just look ugly. — EagleOne\Talk 21:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's an issue to remove a few lines of code once this version, or another replaces it as an actual (non-beta) release. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 23:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

30 August[edit]

As shown above there was no agreement, you simply changed it to how you wanted it. I originally added the sub-section because I believe it's valid for the reasons given above, and you agreed with what I said and what parallels said, though you felt the word beta was sufficient enough. Obviously I don't, and this is quite silly really. Having a sub-section is not a big deal, especially if the reasons for it can be factually substantiated. You really shouldn't remove correct information from Wikipedia, period -- even if it bothers you or doesn't look exactly how you want it to. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 10:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I took the three weeks of non-response from you to mean that the issue was resolved. If this wasn't resolved to your satisfaction on Aug. 9, then you should have responded sooner.
I have now changed the "updates" section into a more general-scope "release history" section. Whether you want to admit it or not, these Beta updates are general releases - outside their official release cylce, yes, but still available to the public. I even bolded the word "beta" - I hope that's enough for you. If you don't like it, please don't wait another 3 weeks before posting a reply. — EagleOne\Talk 17:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was on holiday, and I do not need to respond on anyone's timetable. This is a community, thus you're not head of the pack and I do not need to come to a decision when it's convenient for you so that it can be approved by and implemented by you. Further if you look at my last comment on the 9th it was clear I was not happy with the proposals you made, which were due to you believing the lone section "looked ugly".

As for your changes; they are again what you think is correct. I do not care what the section is called, as updates actually accurately described it since it was under the 3.0 heading. Release history would need to include not just that of 3.0, but an actual "history" from 1.0 to now. Further, you're the only one who believes that beta releases are part of the products (Desktop for Mac 3.0) general release cycle, as they (the betas) clearly are not as indicated by Parellels. I have bolded the text from them above with a link to where it's located. Yes, they're public betas, but they are not actual general release updates to 3.0 that everyone should install and use, only those wishing to partake in a beta without support are to do so.

This is all in the terms and conditions and on their site. I do not see your argument at all since you're clearly running on an assumption and misinterpreting the info. If you can provide actual references from Parallels as I have to support your claims we can talk about changing it. You're simply taking ownership of something that no one owns and trying to control the article. I do wish to work it out as this is annoying and quite unproductive. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want this to be resolved, then you should respond more quickly than three weeks, otherwise the issue appears to be dead. I'm not claiming ownership of the article; I'm just trying to present the information here in the most logical manner. You, on the other hand, seem to be concerned with reverting my edits and writing long missives on the Talk page.
In my mind, the best way to document the release history of the product is with a ... drumroll, please ... "Release history" section, with each release identified by a release date and status, whether its beta or final code. I don't know why to continue to narrowly define "release" as only part of a product's final release cycle. These Beta are open to the public - well, registered users of 3.0, anyway - and thus qualify as "released". — EagleOne\Talk 21:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have nothing new to say since you really didn't read anything I said. I gave adequate information on why "history" doesn't work here and why the betas are not updates in the sense you're making them out to be (and it's not my definition, it's Parallels' and it makes sense). Further I've thoroughly explained why they're (the betas) are not general releases (again by Parallels definition since they do not provide support for it).
Once you've actually read what I've wrote in its entirety (especially the statement from Parallels on the beta's not being general releases, rather un-supported beta's) and try to understand it and when you wish to make a real compromise we can try again. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 21:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let me respond to you point by point. You seem to think that I'm laying out a timetable for your responses. I'm not requiring anything from you; this is only a polite request (Ok, maybe not so polite) for a speedier response, which you're free to ignore. Just know that when you wait so long to respond, the issue appears to be closed.
Second, please (there's that word again) do NOT misinterpret my objections to the "Beta" subsection. My comment on the ugliness of the lone subsection was only one of many points.
Placing the "Release history" section under 3.0 implies that the following is the release history for version 3.0. I'm willing to expand it to cover versions 1.0 to 2.5, I simply do not have that information.
If you will allow me, I would like to backpedal somewhat. I shouldn't have called the betas "general releases" in my earlier comment - that just confused the issue, and I'm sorry. Please, let me make my position clearer. My point in using the generic title "Release history" is to cover beta releases and general releases under one umbrella. Regardless of what you may think, beta releases are milestones in a product's release history. I am misinterpreting nothing - a beta release is a release.
I'm not trying to "own" anything, I'm simply trying to make this article better. Since when did "being bold" become "owning the article"? I must have missed that memo. — EagleOne\Talk 01:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That all actually sounds reasonable, except beta's should be made a subsection of the release history section as they're not general releases/updates. Again, the reasoning behind this is that, while they are releases in the sense of being milestones as you pointed out, they are not releases to be used for those in production environments since as stated by Parallels they are "beta code which is not supported by them". If we can work that out then I have no issue with you being bold as this is a open community of editors. The issue was the revert war we got ourselves into as we weren't communicating the issues as we are now.

Thus I think if we could work together to compile a release history for all releases, al though this may be an impossible task, we can try. You have my reasoning behind the beta subset in version 3.0. A product/release that is beta code and not supported should not be intermingled with general "stable and supported" releases. Finally, I was pointing out that aesthetics should not be a reason for truncating a sub-section in an encyclopedia where accuracy and clarity should be the main goal. Cheers. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 09:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion[edit]

It's been six days since a reply. We need some type of consensus as the article is scheduled to be unlocked in a few days time and it'd be a shame to not have come to some form of understanding before then to prevent future conflicts. As stated in my last reply your thoughts sound reasonable, and that I think we can work together to sort it all out. Please read over your last statement and my reply to it and let me know what you think. Cheers. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 09:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, "Conclusion" is premature, as we have not reached a consensus yet. I thought the debate was closed after 3 weeks of non-response on your part, - and I was clearly proven wrong - so where do you get off thinking that this has been closed after 6 days?
I understand your reasoning behind the Beta subsection, but I do not agree. All product milestones should be documented in a consistent, chronological manner, as in a timeline, regardless of their support or production status. As long as beta releases are clearly marked as Beta, unstable code, then there's no reason not to include them in a comprehensive release history. Besides, anyone wishing to download the code will have to go through Parallel's website, where they have to read several warning messages, some of which you have quoted above.
I think we can compile a semi-comprehensive release history just through the press releases section on the website. We'll have to fill in the blanks from other sources. — EagleOne\Talk 16:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there's no consensus, and being that we're the only two having the discussion I will attempt to have get 3rd party process/review to evaluate a suitable outcome. Further I wasn't implying the discussion had concluded, but that a conclusion is requested as the page is set to be unlocked. Lastly, Wikipedia isn't about people simply knowing what "beta" means, as some companies do in fact support their beta releases. Wikipedia is about thoroughness, with accurate facts and not about what may be obvious to others. Therefore I continue to believe that a clear demarcation needs to exist between general "supported" updates, and those updates which are beta code and not supported in order to be thorough and encyclopaedic.

Again, my reasoning is made clear by the statement from the manufacturer of the software: "this is BETA code, and it's not designed for production use. This also means that the beta isn't supported via our normal support channels (ie, phone support or email support). Our support teams can only offer help for production builds, like our most recent release, Parallels Desktop 3.0 build4560." Therefore, as I proposed and as is the current state of the article, updates should only refer to production code, the most current of which is 4560. Then with a subsection of beta updates/code. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 12:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

I cam here via a third opinion request. Looking this over. it looks like a storm in a teacup. To be honest, I would drop the whole section, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT#PUBLISHER (Journalism). Will anybody be interested in reading this in a year? In five? --Stephan Schulz 14:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Since you are talking about a beta release of a 3.0 update rather than of a version 4.0, I would back off and say in the updates section:

Hope the helps. Dread Pirate WestleyAargh 01:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll support that, if only to end this damn debate. — EagleOne\Talk 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


I too support it, however with a much more positive outlook. Thus I will alert the admins that it has been settled and that there will be not updates section at all since it's better to not have a section rather than an incorrect one. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page in response to a request at WP:RFPP. Good luck. MastCell Talk 21:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Coherence[edit]

I have not used the coherence and related features, but those sound like very useful features that make up a major component of the overall system. The basic goal seems to be the ability to seemlessly work with both OS X and Windows applications. That is a very cool feature. However, there seems to be relatively little emphasis on this feature in the article. Why? Tacvek 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, nice feature. I believe it gets its due credit however. There is a screenshot to show its use, plus the article explains what it does and how it does it. This is an encyclopedia, thus all items are equally relevant, though some more than others, but in general the aim is to be thorough yet neutral. What more would you like to see or know? What do you believe is missing? Nja247 (talkcontribs) 18:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I'm not sure why Comparison of VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop is a separate article. It should be merged into this and/or the VMware Fusion articles as the comparison article alone is not very encyclopaedic on its own merits. There is already a comparison of VMs page. It (the Comparison of Desktop and Fusion article) seems almost like a culmination of product reviews. Comments sought at Talk:Comparison_of_VMware_Fusion_and_Parallels_Desktop#Merger Nja247 (talkcontribs) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

New feature release[edit]

I updated the article to reflect the major changes brought by the release. I had to remove the information about 4GB RAM limit versus the 1.5 limit since there is no confirmation of this feature in the final GA release (build 5160). If someone finds and actual, verifiable source that maintains a new 4GB limit in build 5160 then please add a small bit about it in the appropriate spot and source it. Cheers. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 09:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ParallelsVT.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:ParallelsVT.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Parallels Logo.svg[edit]

The image Image:Parallels Logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Only retailer?[edit]

I don't think so. You can pick up a copy of Parallels anywhere from Best Buy to the Apple Store. You can even pick up a the server edition at the Apple Store. I removed that sentence from the article.Pisharov (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Parallels coherence.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Parallels coherence.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Version 7: Supported operating systems[edit]

Guests: The example guest operating systems are correct[1], but they seem like odd choices to me. OS/2 Warp is probably important to my old professor who refused to switch to Windows 18 years ago, but now wouldn't Ubuntu 11 be more relevant? Aphzidos (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Parallels Desktop 7 for Mac - System Requirements". Retrieved April 10, 2012.