Video: Testing Windows on an M1 Mac With Parallels 16

[chucker23n1]

Thanks, though - that last absurd argument makes it clear that you're not even trying to engage with the discussion and just trolling, which saves everybody else a lot of time.

I think it’s just “willing to die on a weird hill” more than trolling.

 

[theluggage]

I was wondering about the same and found out it actually has x86 emulation built-in so it should be able to run pretty much anything. Too bad the emulation doesn't seem to be anywhere even close to Rosetta 2 performance (which I will believe only when I see it myself, though).

General consensus seems to be that the Qualcomm chips in the Surface X1 and other ARM Windows machines are pretty lackluster, and the M1 thrashes them. The x86-64 emulation in Win10 ARM is still in "Insiders preview" (even on Surface X etc) and only appeared a few weeks ago. Previously, it was just 32 bit. It also sounds like the new 2020 Surface X is getting better reviews than the original (which was the basis for early criticism).

However, whether or not Windows on ARM will get widespread acceptance is still questionable. Previous attempts to support Windows on anything other than x86 have all crashed and burned. Trouble is, Apple, who control both the Mac and MacOS, can turn to its developers and say "We're switching to ARM - get with the program or take up rose growing" whereas Microsoft can only make ARM-bases Surfaces (which don't come close to matching Mac sales) while the vast majority of PC makers will go on making x86 machines for the army of highly conservative corporate customers, often running ancient software. A lot of windows Developers can safely ignore ARM for the moment.

If you absolutely need to run x86 Windows apps and care about performance, I'm afraid that Windows on ARM and its built in x86 support is probably your last best hope. Yes, Rosetta 2 is more impressive, but the question is how much of that comes from it being optimised for modern MacOS apps and tightly integrated into MacOS. Apple has been clearing the way for Rosetta for years, by aggressively dropping 32 bit support, Carbon, promoting Metal, strict App Store guidelines etc. Windows users expect anything written after 1995 and using the windows equivalent of Carbon to run. Mac users are lucky if something written before 2010 runs.

All things being equal, you'd expect better performance when only the x86 apps themselves were running under emulation/translation, and the rest of the OS was native, compared to emulating/translating the whole OS from the drivers up. In any case, a Rosetta-based hypervisor/emulator (there's no hard line these days - QEMU is both, for instance) is currently hypothetical.

What we have is a "technical preview" of Parallels virtualising a "developer preview" of Windows for ARM which doesn't claim to be anything near ready for use, but which - when it isn't crashing or glitching - is turning in impressive results (including with x86 emulation) including thrashing the "real" Surface X in geekbench (for what that's worth...). It's not certain when, or even if, it will be ready for use - but it is looking very promising.

Apparently, it sounds like Crossover/WINE might work, or be made to work, with Rosetta - but then, even on pure x86, WINE only works well for a subset of Windows apps.

However, there will certainly be some people who rely on x86 virtualisation or Boot Camp for whom the switch to Apple Silicon will be the end of the line... assuming that your workflow is still the same in several years' time when Apple finally drop support for Intel. Apple thinks its more profitable to make a better Mac than a better PC clone, and they have better market research than we do.

ARM Windows at this point, no thanks. Pretty much the same with ARM Linux distributions when pretty much all the information and software you find will be for x86 versions.

Not so. Linux has supported ARM (and other non-x86 CPUs) since the 1990s and is primarily influenced by Unix which has always been CPU agnostic. Many of the Linux distros have had stable ARM64 versions for a while now, including near-complete software repositories containing most of the usual open-source software projects. Of course there will be exceptions, but it is in a far better state than Windows-on-ARM.

Plus, there's x86 translators and emulators for Linux that run x86 binaries.

 

[chucker23n1]

Not so. Linux has supported ARM (and other non-x86 CPUs) since the 1990s and is primarily influenced by Unix which has always been CPU agnostic. Many of the Linux distros have had stable ARM64 versions for a while now, including near-complete software repositories containing most of the usual open-source software projects. Of course there will be exceptions, but it is in a far better state than Windows-on-ARM.

There’s also major existing products based on Linux on ARM: Android, and the Raspberry Pi. The latter means there’s a sizeable hobbyist community, too.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Did I say all heavy pro users are techies? No. But professionals doing CAD, Video editing etc. are far more likely to be technically competent, and less computer-phobic than someone just using wordprocessing, email, spreadsheets etc. (and usually only scratching the surface of those apps, at that).

Not actually true. Try doing IT support in a field where users are doing CAD and Video editing on rigs that you'll never personally have a need for and you'll see just how wrong you are here.

This isn't a question of black-and-white: you're the one making it a false dichotomy. You're the one refusing to even consider the possibility that all those "non-Pro" Mac users who need access to a few Windows apps to deal with the Windows-majority world might outnumber the special cases who choose to use a Mac to run "pro" PC apps.

He says with absolutely no data to back that up.

Parallels users don't even need to see that slider.

No, they need to see others, and that's assuming they don't care about performance, which is not applicable to all users of Parallels by a long shot. (I at least have empirical data to back that claim up. You don't even have that here.)

...boot Windows, set up the WiFi, configure the screen resolution and depth (probably seek out and install the latest video drivers if you care about performance that much) discover you need to buy and install Paragon APFS to read your Mac partition and/or work out how to access your NAS from windows... all of which are either unnecessary, done automatically or pre-installed when you use a VM (MS has pre-configured VM images for all the common hypervisors).

So, basically the same things they'd have to do if they had an actual PC. Again, find your least technical person and explain to them how virtualization works. Hell, do that for a living. You clearly don't do this regularly or for a living, so don't talk to me like you have.

Come on, you know that a non-tech user can't properly configure even a pre-installed Windows PC for a pro app without a lot of guidance.

You do realize that non-tech users don't just have one level of tech-illiteracy, right?

...and if MS do offer Windows-on-ARM64 then it's likely to be as an OEM-style bundle with a custom image sold via Parallels and/or VMWare (like SoftWindows was in the old days) it's likely to be even more click-and-drool.



Inconvenient, sure - that's the whole freaking point of my argument!

No. Your argument is that virtualization will suffice for all, if not most. You do not have any data to back that up. I can at least attest that it won't suffice for anywhere near "all". Neither of us can say whether or not it will suffice for most. It's just that simple. I don't know why you keep fighting me on it.

I've been doing that for twice as long

What you say and, more importantly, how you say it, doesn't speak to that.

, and if you think that "computer-illiterate folk" could reliably install and configure Windows (regardless of whether it is bootcamp, a VM or a "real" PC) and get it working to spec without extensive support then you've been dealing with a better class of computer illiterate person.

Computer illiterate folk are still running their 27" PC screens at the default 800x600.
Computer illiterate folk don't know how to copy files other than by opening them and choosing "save as..."
Computer illiterate folk get confused about the difference between MS Office and MS Windows.
Computer illiterate folk don't know the difference between RAM and storage, let alone have any idea what a sensible partition size would be.
Computer illiterate folk use pocket calculators to work out the values to type into Excel spreadsheets (seriously, I've seen it more than once).
Computer illiterate folk aren't (always) stupid - they just aren't being paid to know stuff about computers.

You lost most of them at "download Windows".

Computer illiteracy is not a binary. Some folk are more computer illiterate than others. Again, I'm not sure how you lose most of them with a slider and the execution of a dirt simple installer that literally installs every driver for you. Sounds much simpler than selecting a virtualization product (not to mention at least $80 cheaper than paying for a virtualization product), and setting up a virtual machine with file folder redirection/sharing between host and guest. Not saying that Parallels and VMware haven't done their best to make that dirt simple. But you're not ever going to sell me on that being simpler than a freakin' slider.

The idea that bootcamp is easier to use and VMs were too hard was your point.

No, my point, at least originally, is that it won't suffice for most or all, like your original claim said. Then it became a dumb pissing contest about how Parallels is simpler than manipulating partition tables (because Boot Camp users really have to understand what's going on there )

I'm not suggesting that VMs are vastly easier, but at worst it is "swings and roundabouts" and at best you can set up a Parallels installation so that when the user double-clicks on a MS Project file under MacOS it wakes up windows and opens the file in a window on the Mac desktop.

No, you have been doing nothing but hammering home that VMs are vastly easier. That and that they'll suffice for most. That's all you've done here. Also the idea that the only people using Windows on a Mac are doing so for crap like MS Project and not higher-end use cases (as though the population of Boot Camping 16" MacBook Pro users are just trying to run Project)!

I still hope you made a full backup first. There is a concept of "low risk of serious damage" vs. "larger risk of minor damage"? As in: totally hosing your SSD vs. having to delete a useless VM image file/folder and start again.

No more than I usually back things up. But I've never had ANY kind of an issue with Boot Camp from a reliability standpoint that went beyond the bounds of typical physical drive failure.

No. I keep on harping on about the point where saving all your work, copying the files you need to USB stick (your suggestion) shutting down MacOS, booting up Windows (hopefully it doesn't want to install updates first), retrieving your files... then reversing the process when you want to switch back to MacOS... is slow c.f. just waking a windows VM from suspension and having it run alongside your MacOS apps. Windows' black-screen-to-login-prompt time is a tiny part of that.

...And if you were only running the one or two minor apps, I'd say that works and is a good solution! However, you seem to insist, with no data to back it up whatsoever, that this is the vast majority of use cases for Windows running on a Mac, so it's categorically the best solution. I'm here to tell you that you have no data to back that up and that it ISN'T going to suffice for all workflows.

Not every user has as much issue as you do closing apps (also, it's 2020; most modern OSes will re-open your closed windows. Apple has been doing this since 2011 with Lion.)

Practical logic is that established facts beat speculation. The video shows Parallels Tools working on Win10 for ARM.

Which is why there are plenty of sites saying that you have to uninstall and reinstall Parallels Tools each time you load the VM.

You're not going to sell me on the idea that any of this works stably. I've seen the same videos you have. I've also read numerous articles on the current state of being able to do this. Parallels does NOT have stable drivers for Windows 10 for ARM64. Drivers are not a it-works-or-it-doesn't-work binary. I don't know how you say you've been doing this for over 20 years while not seeming to grasp that concept (unless you've only ever worked with Apple hardware).

Whatever the technicalities of how the drivers are working, Parallels has self-evidently written/ported Parallel Tools to "an OS that isn't able to be licensed to even run inside their product".

Except it is licensed: for development/evaluation use by people registered in the "Windows Insiders" program. Look at the videos again - people are getting a virtual machine disc image from an official Microsoft site after legitimately signing in. It's not some dubious Warez site.

The ability to acquire something and rights to use it are not always linked. Development/evaluation use is one thing. Parallels cannot provide support for Windows running on Apple Silicon Macs. If you work in any kind of professional environment, that support is make or break. That's the key take-away here.

I am not denying that it's a proof of concept, that, all things considered, works better than it ought to. The fact that you keep reading that into what I'm saying is a problem on your end; not mine. I'm saying that beyond using Windows in this limited capacity, it is not currently an answer to being able to ditch Intel Macs for their ability to virtualize Windows and it's DEFINITELY not an answer to being able to replace Boot Camp (which again, was YOUR original point).

And yes, that probably means that Parallels have some cause to expect that there will be a way of getting a full license. Since their entire business is built around virtualisation/containerisation products for Mac and servers, since the entire Mac range is going M1, since there's also huge interest in ARM processors on servers (even MS are rumoured to be working on an ARM server chip) then yeah, maybe, just maybe, they know more than we do about Microsoft's plans for Windows-on-ARM licensing.

Microsoft teased Windows Server for ARM64 in 2017 and then backtracked, saying that they'd only use it internally and for Azure. It's going to be a LONG while before x86 is dethroned in the server market.

You also speak as though Parallels' ability to run Windows is their bread and butter. Running Linux on a Mac via a VM is important to users and an important thing for Parallels to support (and also being the main thing that was demoed back in WWDC20). Parallels doesn't care about anything other than being the number one hypervisor choice for Mac users. Clearly whatever drivers they have in play need A LOT of work assuming that's what these VMs are even using at all.

Seriously? You're going to go with that? You know that Apple Silicon Parallels is currently a technical preview with a laundry-list of missing features and bugs... running a developer preview of Win10 for ARM that isn't ready for production use even on a Surface X! ...and even if the suspend feature never appears (for some unlikely technical reason) you're still ignoring all the other advantages of not needing to reboot.

Rebooting is not the root canal for me that it is for you. Sorry that offends you! Similarly, virtualization is not the end-all solution for every Windows-on-Mac user the way you keep insisting that it will be. You have no data to support that it will suffice for "most" users either (especially since you keep bringing up Microsoft Project users as your main example scenario).

Thanks, though - that last absurd argument makes it clear that you're not even trying to engage with the discussion and just trolling, which saves everybody else a lot of time.

I mean, you're the one that keeps arguing based on incomplete information and sweeping generalization. Maybe you're the one trolling. Hell, you were the one insisting for a similar length of time that Touchscreen Macs were an inevitable necessity despite all obvious evidence to the contrary. Maybe this is how you troll? Either way, hat's off to you for your trolling style!

 

[ericwn]

I can tell you one thing
Big Sur is just a BIG BLOATED disaster
Catalina was better
We keep going in reverse on every OS update
12 GB of BLOAT and painfully slow boots
and your updates for all your installed apps fail to show up

Windows 10 has a much better track record for fast boots and reliability.

Oh what an in depth analysis.

 

[chucker23n1]

I can tell you one thing
Big Sur is just a BIG BLOATED disaster
Catalina was better
We keep going in reverse on every OS update
12 GB of BLOAT and painfully slow boots
and your updates for all your installed apps fail to show up

Windows 10 has a much better track record for fast boots and reliability.

Not sure how this relates to… Windows, the M1, or Parallels 16, but my experience with Big Sur so far is better than with Catalina (which arguably isn't saying much).

 

[iomatic]

QQs (maybe)— Collective thoughts wanted on Windows/Parallels and hardware:

I was looking at getting a either a Surface or M1 MBA (only currently have a work-issued Mac, and iPad these days) to run Win honestly for the occasional hardware updates (flash drives that need a firmware update, amateur radio apps that also utilize Bluetooth, etc.)— how mature is M1+Win ARM+Parallels enough to drive/communicate via ports, etc.? Is it worth getting an M1 Mac at this point or just go with a Surface/low-end touch (kinda nice for SDR, if you know what that is)?

Thanks!