Kju-app (QEMU port) vs. Parallels? input sought.

1 reply [Last post]
Joined: Feb 11 2004
Posts: 208

I've tried both. Well, I got OpenBSD 3.9 installed on Parallels trial version. Works great. Xorg in 1280x800 mode on my MacBook works great. Firefox installed, posted on some forums. Happy Slappy.

I got OpenBSD 3.9 installed on "Q" - http://www.kju-app.org/kju/ and it seems to be working well also, but I went for a network upgrade to OpenBSD 4.0 so I haven't actually tested things like Xorg and all that. It appears it will also work very well, given what I'm seeing.

Has anyone actually done a good side by side comparison of these? Parallels is $80. Q is $0. I was actually about to shell out $80 for parallels then I saw they had a trial license. When doing some research on getting x.org to go 1280x800 (vs. 1024x768 or whatever it wanted to default to) I saw some posts about QEMU and tried it.

So here I am, asking why people would pay for Parallels Desktop. Aside from a bit of a prettier interface, I'm not seeing much worth my money here. I'm a n00b to this stuff, so I could be overlooking something huge. I'm hoping someone can tell me what that something huge is, if said creature actually exists.

Of course, kju-app could totally blow up on me here in the next day or so, or not work the way I want it to, then I'd come to an understanding without much input from the mighty Intel fritterers.


Chimera: Black MacBook - Core2 Duo, 1GB Dual Channel, 120GB SATA
Hackintosh: Wallstreet Built-to-the-hilt with security and wireless software for penetration testing, OSX 10.2
Blackintosh: SE/30, two 4GB Seagate Barracudas, 32MB RAM, NetBSD (Painted/cle

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tom Owad's picture
Joined: Dec 16 2003
Posts: 2463

Parallels is a virtualizer, whereas QEMU is an emulator.