Parallels Desktop for Mac Running on Mac with Apple Silicon
parallels.com
parallels.com
They even pushed disfunction back to older versions - VMs which previously started unattended would be hung up with a "sales" window touting a new version, the VMs themselves wouldn't start, and Parallels had no way to fix the "issue" aside from the same bullshit we'd expect from outsourced IT ("Try uninstalling and reinstalling", et cetera).
Upgrades often required reactivating Windows VMs, which is a huge pain in the ass.
I wouldn't trust Parallels with shit.
After being extorted for a few years, paying the "Parallels Tax" i'm pretty keen on never giving them another $...
There's one thing of a company having to pay their employees and another of basically robbing your customers of what they've paid for (for no technical reason whatsoever).
This experience will always be the first thing that comes to mind when I hear the name "Parallels".
No chance they aren’t already deep into work on porting VMWare Fusion over as a result.
EDIT: they are - but I guess it will only support aarch64 guests.
https://twitter.com/mikeroysoft/status/1275483550985318400?s...
If you’re talking about running x86 on a VM on Apple’s chips, I doubt it.
You’ll need to emulate the architecture or add a translation layer to map the instructions from one architecture to another.
If you need to run virtual machines on your Mac, then just use VirtualBox. Trying to run "seamless" windows apps on your Mac OS computer is a totally shit experience and nightmare.
Honestly though, I have no clue, I just know it's odd they're being so cagey.
My question is how good is the GPU emulation? That can really make or break GUI stuff.
Welp - guess it’s aarch64 only. https://twitter.com/mikeroysoft/status/1275483550985318400?s...
So for my case it seems that I should either stick with macOS for intel, or move my business to Windows.
Anyway thank you for the help!
They did go out of their way to show Linux working. But it was Linux ARM. Which is not nothing but also not everything.
People run Windows for the software library - not because they really like Windows.
I was under the impression (like many others apparently) that Windows 10 ARM64 wouldn't be very useful (since so few native apps are available), but being able to run 32-bit (x86) apps is huge:
Running 32-bit Applications https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winprog64/run...
I think you were mostly pointing at Windows's ARM failure so far, which is fair -- a lot of applications simply won't run unless they make an ARM specific version or have a binary that happens to be compatible with the Windows built in x86 emulator
Linux support is likely much more important to Mac users, likely by a large margin. Not necessarily Linux ARM virtualization, but Linux on x86 for web developers working with Docker or Linux VMs. Nobody likes playing guessing games about whether their local setup is close enough to their production environment.
I very much doubt that. Maybe for the HN crowd of web developers, but for normal users, embedded/desktop developers, basically everyone else, Windows is more important.
I hate to break it to you, but web developers outnumber embedded/ desktop users about 5 : 1 or more, particularly now that a huge chunk of desktop software has turned into glorified web apps.
Most users are barely capable of running one computer, let alone a virtual environment with a whole second OS on top. People who rely on Windows software generally run Windows.
And in fact probably far more corporate users run Parallels/Fusion than developers as there are far far more corporate dependencies on Windows and older Mac OSes if MacOS was always an integral part of your business pipeline than there are developers.
Bespoke business software, accounting software, control software and most importantly legacy software people are still running Macromedia software and even older things to be able to pull out and open legacy projects.
Sorry to break it to you but just like Linux for desktops - Linux virtualization for Mac is a rounding error.
You also seem to not understand how people actually use parallels or fusion they aren’t running or managing guests directly, those are packaged and presented as apps by their IT department.
Half if not more of the apps on our Corp App Store for MacOS are packaged like that.
When Jane from accounting opens her managed Mac and clicks on Sage Book 2005 or some 20 years old bespoke Oracle Forms application she doesn’t know it runs in a VM likely under Windows and quite possibly even Windows XP.
I think you view is really detached from reality since you seem to not know how most businesses run and managed their endpoints.
There is a whole industry of abstracting “having to manage their computer” not because most people aren’t capable of doing that but because they weren’t trained to do so and even if they were/are it’s a complete waste of time and resources for them to do so.
Nope. Worked corporate and the only Mac users with Parallels were devs, and only those who worked on cross platform software.
> Linux virtualization for Mac is a rounding error.
Also, nope. Docker and Kubernetes both run atop VMs and Docker adoption is quite large in web development.
> When Jane from accounting opens her managed Mac and clicks on Sage Book 2005 or some 20 years old bespoke Oracle Forms application she doesn’t know it runs in a VM likely under Windows and quite possibly even Windows XP.
I'm sure there are some businesses that run that way, but again, I just escaped corporate life. The folks who had to run Windows apps were just given Windows computers. I'm sure there are some companies where everyone has the option and they run virtualization as you suggest, but I haven't seen any evidence it's anywhere near as ubiquitous in corporations as you suggest.
However, if you want to keep an older license without upgrading, I think Rosetta 2 is going to attempt to translate to ARM and cache that translation, which should provide reasonable execution speed. Surely, though, when it has to fall back to emulation, performance is gonna feel pretty bad. That's my expectation.
Do people really think it's just a matter of "recompiling" their software? Autodesk, Photoshop, etc. have decades of code that has been hand-optimized for x86 ASM. They're not just going to "recompile" the code to run on Apple's ARM chips. At best they're going to ship something that runs in a dog-slow virtualization layer.
Not if you like paying your bills and sleeping.
One thing I've heard suggested is that this will cause an uptick in Linux ARM and ARM server VM sales. It'll be curious to see how this plays out.
My comment wasn't about most web development, it was specific to using Docker images between platforms.
I getting paid to do this, I don't want to screw with guessing games about whether a particular bug is platform specific or not. I already do this to a much smaller extent with Mac vs Linux development.
There are a fair number of web development jobs I would be willing to risk jumping architectures on, for example right now we do react development which leans almost entirely on node.js and I'm cautiously optimistic that'll be a fairly transparent hop since it runs entirely on JS.
One thing that works well is an experimental feature called Docker buildx, which allows you to build for several architectures simultaneously and upload the image to your docker repository: then when a client requests a docker image, the repository will send them one that matches their architecture.
It's probably not, but we'll have to wait and see.
Parallels lets you run an operating system on top of your operating system. But based on Apple's docs, it won't support emulating Intel CPUs well enough to run an x86 virtual machine, it will only run operating systems which run on ARM.
And that’s the big thing a lot aren’t understanding.
Having said that, performance is not the same.
On the other hand, there are builds of Linux that are ARM. Windows also has ARM builds[1] and they also have a translation layer to run x86 applications[2]. This is done in software, so there’s a performance hit[3].
[1]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/
[2]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/apps-on...
[3]: https://www.techspot.com/review/1599-windows-on-arm-performa... (Other parts are good if you’re looking to get an overview of how it works and limitations).
This is for virtualizing an entire environment/OS like Linux (ARM only likely), it has nothing to do with Mac apps. There's also not enough information provided about if it can emulate any x86 but chances are, it won't be able to do that.
You can find out more about Rosetta here: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple_silicon/abou...
Is "Apple Silicon" really the best they could conjure. It is snobbish and vague. It evokes nothing about power, speed, performance or for that matter computation in general. It likely originated from the title of apple internal presentations over the years titled "Transitioning x86 to Apple Silicon."
Who is the term "Apple Silicon" for? For buyers of ipads/iphones. They don't care at all. For buyers of MBA/MBP/iMac/MacPro. Some will care.
A PR/Marcom team got the latest presentation and was tasked with developing the external messaging. Instead of doing the challenging work of naming the Apple processor line, they just went with "Apple Silicon".
What would Steve Jobs have done?
The term "Apple Silicon" appears 15 times on this page: "Apple announces Mac transition to Apple silicon" https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-announces-mac-t...
Especially given the apple only uses the ISA, not the ARM reference designs.