Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

bogdanw

macrumors 603
Mar 10, 2009
5,695
2,729
Last edited:

gilby101

macrumors 68020
Mar 17, 2010
2,491
1,346
Tasmania
Why would anyone waste time with that?
It's more that reading the 11 blog posts provides a lot of background in how Apple silicon VMs work, how they are different to those with Intel, and why they are more restricted. I suggest that many people do not have a good grasp of the new VMs. Howard's VM articles are all listed about a third of the way down https://eclecticlight.co/m1-macs/.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobcomer

bogdanw

macrumors 603
Mar 10, 2009
5,695
2,729
I was talking about the Viable app, that recommends another better app.

Apple provides a sample code project that “demonstrates how to install and run macOS virtual machines (VMs) on Apple silicon”https://developer.apple.com/documen...os_in_a_virtual_machine_on_apple_silicon_macs
Based on that sample code project and documentation, many have build similar apps. Unlike Viable, most have made their code public.
https://github.com/evansm7/vftool
https://github.com/s-u/macosvm
https://github.com/jspahrsummers/Microverse
https://github.com/KhaosT/MacVM
https://github.com/insidegui/VirtualBuddy
https://github.com/cirruslabs/tart
https://github.com/Code-Hex/vz
virtualOS “is open source software, source code is available at: https://github.com/yep/virtualOS” and the free app in the App Store https://apps.apple.com/app/virtualos/id1614659226

And there are better things to read than those ramblings.
Starting with Apple’s documentation https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization
“Why Changes in Mac Virtualization Are Good for Apple IT Teams” https://blog.kandji.io/mac-virtualization
“Apple’s Virtualization framework is a great, free way to test new macOS betas”
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...-apps-to-safely-test-the-macos-ventura-betas/
UTM Documentation - Settings (Apple) https://docs.getutm.app/settings-apple/settings-apple/
 
Last edited:

SB1500

Suspended
Dec 31, 2021
147
104
My advice / vote for OP is for Parallels. It's got the fit and finish of an Apple product and it's very much a long term Apple first business. They have it nailed with the little niggles that the everyday user struggles with - dragging and dropping between Mac / Windows, File Sharing between them, sharing the network source, easy 'Which OS do you want this hard drive to connect to?' interface as and when you need it. And things like hardware / resource allocation already tuned and decided for you based on your Mac specs. Coherence works really well although I don't like it personally. When I tried VMWare Fusions and even VirtualBox on older Intel Macs in the past it was always a hassle sharing things between the systems. I preferred Boot Camp back then.

I must renew my Parallels... I hate the subscription model and I'd be lying if I said I noticed a difference year on year at least since I've been paying for it since 2019...
 

cyb3rdud3

macrumors 68040
Jun 22, 2014
3,297
2,052
UK
Another vote for Parallels. I've been using VMWare Fusion Pro for a very long time, but for the last few years it just doesn't do it for me. Time is money, don't like tinkering around. And on Silicon MAC parallels just worked. I also tried to go free with VirtualBox, but too many niggle with getting it to work with all systems, same with plain UTM in my experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cape Dave

bobcomer

macrumors 601
May 18, 2015
4,949
3,690
I've been having problems with parallels lately on my intel iMac, so I'm leaning back the other way now and only run VMWare on both my iMac and my M2 Mini Pro. Weird mouse pointer problems. (it disappearing or getting stuck in a parallels VM)
 

TSE

macrumors 68040
Jun 25, 2007
3,974
3,314
St. Paul, Minnesota
Another vote for Parallels. I've been using VMWare Fusion Pro for a very long time, but for the last few years it just doesn't do it for me. Time is money, don't like tinkering around. And on Silicon MAC parallels just worked. I also tried to go free with VirtualBox, but too many niggle with getting it to work with all systems, same with plain UTM in my experience.

Yep. Parallels is the most costly, but I'm not 14 anymore and have time tinkering around and optimizing everything. Parallels is so well designed and functional it feels like a native app.
 

chrfr

macrumors G5
Jul 11, 2009
13,520
7,047
There's now a VMware Fusion Tech Preview which greatly improves the experience of using Windows on Apple Silicon Macs, but the initial setup process of the Windows VM is still far more complex than that of Parallels. You can at least use Fusion for free, and with the Tech Preview you get all the Fusion Pro features for free. Given how poorly Fusion 13 worked with Windows on Apple Silicon, I am really hoping this is a free upgrade when it eventually ships:
VMware Fusion Tech Preview 2023 - VMware Fusion Blog
The Tech Preview adds 3d acceleration and drag and drop finally works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jagooch

Kevrani

macrumors member
Nov 15, 2007
87
127
Dublin, Ireland
There's now a VMware Fusion Tech Preview which greatly improves the experience of using Windows on Apple Silicon Macs, but the initial setup process of the Windows VM is still far more complex than that of Parallels. You can at least use Fusion for free, and with the Tech Preview you get all the Fusion Pro features for free. Given how poorly Fusion 13 worked with Windows on Apple Silicon, I am really hoping this is a free upgrade when it eventually ships:
VMware Fusion Tech Preview 2023 - VMware Fusion Blog
The Tech Preview adds 3d acceleration and drag and drop finally works.
I was losing the will to live trying to get the last version of Fusion working. I thought I was vaguely intelligent enough to get it working!

This new preview however, is like night and day. Much easier to master and I thoroughly recommend!
 
  • Like
Reactions: gilby101

Mac Hammer Fan

macrumors 65816
Jul 13, 2004
1,255
457
I tried to install Windows 11 and VMWarePro 13.0.2 on my MacStudio M1 and even after six hours it didn't succeed. I managed to install the beginning of Windows 11 but I couldn't connect to the internet even that I checked and switched all the network settings. Parallels is much more user friendly. I recommend Parallels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cape Dave

Defever

macrumors member
Mar 16, 2022
30
3
I have read on several sources that VMWare Fusion doesn't work well on Silicon Macs and is difficult to install Windows 11. I have Parallels 18 and it's easy to use. However it's not optimised for Sonoma, I will upgrade if there is a price reduction (e.g. 25% on Black Friday?). Definitely another vote for Parallels.
 

Mac Hammer Fan

macrumors 65816
Jul 13, 2004
1,255
457
VMware Fusion 13.5 | 19 OCT 2023 | Build 22583790
"What's New
Download and Install Windows 11 guest operating system on an Apple Silicon Mac
You can now download and install Windows 11 as a guest operating system from the Fusion user interface on an Apple Silicon Mac."
https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-Fusion/13.5/rn/vmware-fusion-135-release-notes/index.html
https://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/fusion-evaluation.html
Thanks for the info. This version is way better than the previous one (13.0.2). I could finally install Windows 11 now and the VMWare tools. However I have the impression that Parallels is faster, especially in graphics.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cape Dave

Mac Hammer Fan

macrumors 65816
Jul 13, 2004
1,255
457
Some benchmark comparisons
Schermafbeelding 2023-10-23 om 11.16.14.png
Schermafbeelding 2023-10-23 om 11.06.44.png

left parallels 19 right VMWare Fusion Pro 3.5

Scherm­afbeelding 2023-10-23 om 11.22.54.png
Scherm­afbeelding 2023-10-23 om 10.56.42.png
 
Last edited:

Rastafabi

macrumors 6502
Mar 12, 2013
334
155
Europe
That's not a fair comparison at all @Mac Hammer Fan. CPU wise they should be about the same. When you compare those screenshots you can easily see that one, those do not use the same version of windows (a minor issue) and two, that the VMWare Screenshot only has half the CPU cores allocated (while managing 60% of the multi CPU score). Also the Fusion scores are on reduced windows power mode.
 

Mac Hammer Fan

macrumors 65816
Jul 13, 2004
1,255
457
@Rastafabi
Everything was tested on an M1 Mac Studio with 32 GB RAM. On Parallels there is no difference in speed between Home and Pro Windows. Both Virtual Machines were more than 100 GB disk space . It is also so that I can allocate more CPU cores in Parallels than in VMWare. I used on both the maximum CPU cores and for Geekbench 16 GB RAM.
 

Mac Hammer Fan

macrumors 65816
Jul 13, 2004
1,255
457
Despite more GPU RAM was allocated to VMWare (4 GB) than Parallels (2GB), 2D graphics in Parallels are significantly faster.
Left Parallels right VMware. I don't know why VMWare gives only 2GHz CPU while on the same Mac Studio Parallels gives 3,2 GHz.
Schermafbeelding 2023-10-23 om 12.55.15.png
Schermafbeelding 2023-10-23 om 12.53.47.png

Scherm­afbeelding 2023-10-23 om 13.18.13.png
Scherm­afbeelding 2023-10-23 om 13.17.23.png

Perhaps there is something wrong, but I installed the VMWare Tools.
 
Last edited:

chrfr

macrumors G5
Jul 11, 2009
13,520
7,047
@Rastafabi
Everything was tested on an M1 Mac Studio with 32 GB RAM. On Parallels there is no difference in speed between Home and Pro Windows. Both Virtual Machines were more than 100 GB disk space . It is also so that I can allocate more CPU cores in Parallels than in VMWare. I used on both the maximum CPU cores and for Geekbench 16 GB RAM.
Nonetheless, you can allocate 8 cores with the Pro version of Fusion so the comparison is still uneven. It'd be more useful to see how the two platforms compare with only 4 cores allocated, otherwise this benchmark comparison is pretty useless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobcomer

Mac Hammer Fan

macrumors 65816
Jul 13, 2004
1,255
457
Schermafbeelding 2023-10-23 om 13.44.26.png
Schermafbeelding 2023-10-23 om 11.06.44.png


Schermafbeelding 2023-10-23 om 13.37.44.png
Schermafbeelding 2023-10-23 om 10.56.42.png


As you can see, Parallels with 4 cores is still better. 2D Graphics in VMWare is a disappointment. (see before)
 
Last edited:

Mac Hammer Fan

macrumors 65816
Jul 13, 2004
1,255
457
Nonetheless, you can allocate 8 cores with the Pro version of Fusion so the comparison is still uneven. It'd be more useful to see how the two platforms compare with only 4 cores allocated, otherwise this benchmark comparison is pretty useless.
I have the Pro version (test) and if I choose 8 cores I receive a message that it will slow down my computer and VMWare. But what really worries me is the low 2D graphics score.
 

chrfr

macrumors G5
Jul 11, 2009
13,520
7,047
I have the Pro version (test) and if I choose 8 cores I receive a message that it will slow down my computer and VMWare.
This is true with any virtualization platform. If you allocate all the cores to your virtual machine, performance may suffer due to lack of resources available to run the rest of the computer/operating system/other apps.
 

Mac Hammer Fan

macrumors 65816
Jul 13, 2004
1,255
457
This is true with any virtualization platform. If you allocate all the cores to your virtual machine, performance may suffer due to lack of resources available to run the rest of the computer/operating system/other apps.
I can choose 8 cores with Parallels without a problem but this isn't the case with VMWare. There they say 8 cores will slow down the app VMWare.
 

chrfr

macrumors G5
Jul 11, 2009
13,520
7,047
I can choose 8 cores with Parallels without a problem but this isn't the case with VMWare. There they say 8 cores will slow down the app VMWare.
It's just that VMware chooses to put up a warning, not a difference in how things will actually behave.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.