Not sure what you're getting at. Windows 11 is Windows 10 with bad user interface changes. Things that were 1 click before are now 2 clicks. That's Windows 11.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Parallels for Apple Silicon Macs Now Supports Windows 11 Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Boot Camp is not relevant anymore. It runs on Intel Macs. Which are also not relevant anymore.
I use W11 for business every day. I prefer the MacOS over Windows by far. But W11 runs great with Parallels and I have no interface issues. That's Windows 11!
I had thought that Windows Arm would do an on demand crosscompile like Rosetta 2 To run many x86 windows apps.
It does somewhat, but it's a bit more complicated in Windows land. Sometimes it actually has to do emulation, sometimes what you call crosscompile (I would call it interpret). Windows just has to deal with more situations since there's so much code out there to run.
VMware on M1 is particularly bad because they went their own route for a hypervisor instead of using Apples. Something something about maintaining compatibility with their ESX product.
It's 3D support blows, performance isn't as good etc..
UTM isn't bad for a more advanced user, but Parallels does put a lot of extra effort into getting things like 3D support a bit better fleshed out.
I didn’t ask if they were relevant or not just if boot camp provided better performance than a virtual machine. They are still relevant if you own one and a lot of people still do.
You are mistaken.
For an example, just look at my avatar there on the left, Hans Grosse, a character from the Mac version of Wolfenstein 3D (which had much higher-resolution sprites and higher quality audio and music than the DOS version, back in the days when Macs were more capable gaming machines that Intel PCs).
There is no current Mac, nor has there been since Apple stopped making Macs that could boot into Mac OS 9 many years ago, that can play the Mac version of Wolfenstein 3D in any form without using a virtual machine. In Parallels, I can play a faithful recreation of the game (made, ironically, for Windows) flawlessly.
Of course, neither the original Mac Wolfenstein nor its recreation use 3D acceleration, but I’ve also been able to play older 3D-accelerated games in Parallels just fine.
Since, by your own admission, you “don’t give a crap about games,” I am puzzled why you waste your time and energy posting uninformed, sweeping, categorical pronouncements about gaming and virtualization. If you don’t care, why do you bother?
So much animus! Perhaps I just haven’t been paying attention, but I can’t remember reading many (if any) posts in these forums along the lines of “no cares about your stupid business software; computers are for gaming.”
Mainly because I know virtualization and have been working with it for 30 years. It's not just a hobby for me, it's part of my job.
I don't know games on a PC, it's true, but your example is outside the case I was working from it's so old. I was thinking modern games that rely on heavy graphics and heavy cpu usage.
Virtualization by its very nature only takes up only a portion of the host's resources, and where it gets the slowdowns is mainly in I/O like disk and video, as that is shared by basically everything. (assuming you have enough RAM and cores to assign to your VM. And multiple cores in a VM is harder still.). Virtualization works well in development and testing, as well as learning, and running the apps you need that wont run on your host, where it's not stressing both disk and video at the same time...
It works fine for my purposes. I do miss the old context menus though. Fixed those with a registry tweak, and installed Start11, and the rest has been fine…
1-How do I get Windows to run on Parallels then?
2-I am asking if x64 apps will run on ARM Windows or are we limited to ARM apps, which you did answer. Thanks
I remeber VirtualPC as well as the old Sony PS1 emulator. Pretty amzaing considering the tech at the time.
Yes, but at the expense of having to chose MacOS or Win at boot.
Even with Boot Camp, I used a separate dedicated PC for the final testing to be sure no issues woul arrise with the client using the program..
You should be able to d/l a copy and use a valid Win 11 serial with it. That's what I did.
You can download W11 directly from within Parallels as part of the creation of a new W11 VM. UUDump is another source of a Windows 11 iso file but is a bit more complicated to use and requires a working windows installation to create the iso file. In either case, you will still have to purchase a license from Microsoft or a 3rd party for Windows 11.
1. Windows comes included with Parallels. It downloads it automatically when you install Parallels.
2. Windows ARM allows x64 apps to run, but I don't know if it allows all apps. It's not a solution to play games for example.
Dude, you need to calm the f down.
You said "Good luck trying to run W11 ARM with Fusion. The latest Fusion, that supposedly supports ARM, is so incomplete as to be useless." I can run W11 ARM with Fusion, no luck needed. I also use it for things, so it is not so incomplete as to be useless.
Microsoft didn't support running it at all on ARM outside of the OEM machines it was sold on, so VMWare didn't spend a lot of time on it yet. Also, its a free product compared to Parallels ridiculous subscription model.
Nothing I said was incorrect or misleading information. If anything you were the one providing misleading information, I was just clarifying (if not out right correcting) what you said.
Last edited:
I would like this capable machine to run Windows Arm natively. It can’t so now I have a Asus notebook that cost half as much but runs just as fast. But still I did not have the need of a separate notebook, but Apple forced me by locking the process.
The animus is because gamers tend to have a totally deluded view of the world. In this respect they are somewhat like the entertainment industry. "Hollywood" gets lots of gossip time, but it's just not that important in terms of economics, and gaming likewise is just not that important in terms of tech unit sales; it only seems that way because gamers tend to be very loud, very young, and very ignorant of the world beyond their small circle.
The reason only one of the two statements:
- “no one cares about your stupid gaming; computers are for business software.”
- “no one cares about your stupid business software; computers are for gaming.”
gets criticized is that one of them is essentially correct in terms of the industry's evolution and economics, while the other is wildly out of touch with reality...
Technically Apple hasn't "locked" the process. They aren't stopping the Asahi Linux project, for example. They just aren't actively supporting it, likely because it doesn't make economic sense for them to write specific drivers for their SoCs for someone else's operating system. In the Intel era it was easier, since Apple used off-the-shelf components and provided only basic drivers readily available.
Even if it could run Windows ARM "natively" it probably would have many of the limitations it has in virtualization. Could Microsoft write a DirectX 12 driver for the M-series GPUs? If so, would it really make sense for them to go through the effort for such a niche audience?
It’s not really Apple per se but Microsoft. They’d have to build a WinArm designed specifically for the Mac; something they are unlikely to do so. Unlike Win PCs, there is no standard ARM system implementation. Apple. OTOH, has no reason to try to make an ARM compatible boot camp. I doubt we will every see such an implementation from Apple.
An argument has been made that offering computers that can do both would be an added selling point.
Years ago, I read a post from one of the founding employees at a startup company who wrote that when his company was debating whether to buy Macs or PCs for all their employees (either would have served their business needs), what swayed their decision was that they could play Counter-Strike after hours on PCs, but not on Macs. It turns out there are some folks, even in business, who also want to game, and that influences their platform choice.
(I’m not interested in debating the merits of that argument. Clearly, Apple have shown little interest in catering to the gamer market, and as things have worked out very well for Apple—and as I doubt Tim Cook or anyone else in a position of influence at Apple reads these forums—I’m not going to waste my breath arguing “what if.”)
Yes, there are certainly very loud, very young, and very ignorant gamers, just as there are very loud, very young, and very ignorant folks in all walks of life. Mercifully, the world is a big enough place that I don't actually have to listen to them (and the MacRumors forums tend to be much more civilized than the many wretched hives of scum and villainy one can easily find online).
I’m old enough, however, to remember when Macs were derided as toys by many “serious” business users just because Macs had cute windows and mice. Why do we waste our time and energy worrying about what other people want to do with their computers?
I understand the reasons and I am not actually holding on to a pipe dream where Apple provided us Bootcamp for their proprietary chipset, as I have already bought the windows notebook now.. but this is my 4th macbook and its really disappointing to lose something you have had for over a decade, only because MS and Apple refuse to get along.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft and Apple, so your premise here is completely wrong. What gave the ability for Apple to provide Bootcamp to boot Windows natively is the fact that they were using CPUs provided by Intel. The same would have happened if they used CPUs provided by AMD. Because both conformed to the x86_64 spec, it allowed Macs to be able to boot windows, just like how they were able to boot to Linux. And yes, even the PowerPC Macs were able to boot Linux, because Linux was already ported to that particular chipset.
The operating system had nothing to do with that.
What causes your consternation is the fact that Apple got upset at the poor performance and overheating issues in all of Intel's offerings that they decided to go it alone and build their own, which is where Apple Silicon came from. And because of going to that and dropping Intel altogether, that lost Microsoft another revenue stream, which were those users that used Windows on a Mac via Bootcamp.
Your issue is with Intel, not Microsoft. But you should consider yourself lucky; if memory serves me right, Microsoft hasn't offered an OS not based on the x86 or x86_64 spec since Windows NT 4.x, which they offered it on DEC Alphas, which may barely exist (DEC was bought by HP, and I believe they finally killed off the Alpha chipset).
So complain to Intel about their CPUs effectively making for better space heaters in Manhattan and the Bronx than CPUs in Macs; I mean, a lot of others had.. look at their stock price and the layoffs they've had.
BL.