Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
... And no, Bootcamp with an eGPU is not any better than last year, lol. I am stuck on Windows 10 version 1903, constantly fighting any updates that will break Bootcamp. That’s mainly why I was interested in this possibility. Despite the hassle, it really does work great, even for AAA games. For now, I’ve learned to live with it.

Oh my, I would have assumed it has gotten better, but alas. I'm still on 1809 on Boot Camp, but haven't even launched into it in many months. I'm just using the Parallels version now, as the performance is adequate for what I'm needing (and I don't play any heavy games at the moment).

I think I was one of the early folks to have a mini with Blackmagic eGPU working under Boot Camp. I wrote up a fairly detailed for 1809 over at eGPU.io. I even took lots of screen shots and a video, with the intention of making a good tutorial, but then got too busy. My intention, then had been to try with a newer Windows version and update it... still haven't had the time. LOL

But, then as you know, it was anything but straight forward!

I'm really interested in this Parsec thing mentioned earlier. I'm going to have to look into that. If I could just have a PC sitting somewhere and nearly flawless remote-control, that sounds like a winner!
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkslide29
I don’t remember that. I only remember Virtual PC on OS 9. I had to use it for Windows 98 because it was the only way I could use my external CDRW drive at the time. The Mac OS driver didn’t support packet writing.

If you could run Windows on OS 9 in 1999, why everyone is saying you can't on ARM macs in 2020?

On the contrary I use VMware and it isn't for windows I run CentOS and RedHat for development.
My company has bought or will buy their last Macs.
We won't buy a Mac that cannot run x86 CentOS/RedHat.

Why not ARM CentOS?
Plus, can you please tell me whats so special about CentOS over say Red Hat or Ubuntu? its all linux
 
VMware's already shown ESXi on ARM (including a Raspberry Pi 4) although it's not released as of now. It's pretty clear that ESXi and Fusion already share technology so if VMware ever gets around to releasing the ARM version of ESXi maybe we'll get a version of Fusion as well.
esxi-on-arm-at-the-edge-on-the-smartnic-and-in-the-cloud.html

To me the issue is not can an ARM Mac run a VM, especially Apple is unlikely to release an ARM Mac whose raw power is less than the equivalent x86 version, but will we get a Windows ARM version that lets us run, at reasonable level of performance, the programs we currently run on x86 VMs?

For example, on my 2018 15" i7 MBP Parallels results in Geekbench 5 scores of 950/2700 with 4 cores, which comapres favorably to my HP Envy x360 15 Ryzen 5 4500U scores of 1100/4500 when on AC power. I really see no performance difference in PowerBI between the two. If that is achieved on ARM Macs life will go on...
 
If you could run Windows on OS 9 in 1999, why everyone is saying you can't on ARM macs in 2020?

It isn't that you can't, but that it won't be a VM (virtual machine) but some kind of emulation. This means that it will be way slower (unless the hardware is WAY faster), so not all that useful for anyone doing something more demanding than the most basic of applications.

Remember, there is also a lot more demand on hardware with more specialized GPUs and such these days, at least for higher-end apps or games.
 
To me the issue is not can an ARM Mac run a VM, especially Apple is unlikely to release an ARM Mac whose raw power is less than the equivalent x86 version, but will we get a Windows ARM version that lets us run, at reasonable level of performance, the programs we currently run on x86 VMs?
Apparently the Windows x86 emulator in Windows for ARM is pretty terrible. I can't imagine that doing that emulation inside a VM would be any better if it ever even becomes an option. My use for Windows VMs is to support and deploy software that's running on x64 systems, so Windows on ARM is of no value for me. Unfortunately it most likely means my next work computer will not be a Mac.
 
It isn't that you can't, but that it won't be a VM (virtual machine) but some kind of emulation. This means that it will be way slower (unless the hardware is WAY faster), so not all that useful for anyone doing something more demanding than the most basic of applications.

Remember, there is also a lot more demand on hardware with more specialized GPUs and such these days, at least for higher-end apps or games.

If running demanding software on Windows is your goal, you shouldn't be using a Mac in the first place. That being said, and I do not understand it, but Apple showed ARM Macs emulating x86 software on the fly including Tomb Raider game. Along with things like Wine, maybe the software you need can run without Windows OS in the first place.
 
I do not understand it, but Apple showed ARM Macs emulating x86 software on the fly including Tomb Raider game.

Kind of.

Rosetta 2 lets you run (most) x86 Mac apps on ARM Macs. It does so by a combination of mostly binary translation, and some ad-hoc emulation. That is, before the app runs, most of it (in many cases all of it) is converted into an ARM app, and only the small parts that can't be converted get emulated at runtime. There is still a performance hit, somewhere around 20-35%, it seems.

However, this is not a workable approach to emulating an entire OS.

Along with things like Wine, maybe the software you need can run without Windows OS in the first place.

It's possible that someone would use Wine to run a Windows app this way, yes. (Unfortunately, there is no mixed mode. So I believe the Wine folks couldn't, say, port most of the Wine libraries to ARM and have the game itself not be ported.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveW928
VMware's business has always(?) been about virtualization, though. They may not have the expertise to emulate another architecture, and they might not have much incentive to hire such engineers. They do have plenty of incentive to expand to ARM virtualization.



Hm, I'm not sure what you're asking here.

What we know:

  • Windows is predominantly an x86 operating system. Traditionally, almost all Windows apps run on x86 only.
  • Windows also runs on ARM, but with some limitations (such as only being licensed to OEMs).
  • Windows on ARM also includes an emulator for x86 apps now. So it might not actually matter that VMware has no emulation expertise; VMware would just virtualize Windows (ARM on ARM), and Microsoft would do the rest.
  • Apple has shown interest in virtualizing Linux on ARM Macs, but not for virtualizing other systems.
What we don't know:

  • Are there contractual hurdles, and have Apple, Corel (Parallels), VMware, Microsoft, (Qualcomm?) talked to resolve them at all?
  • What is performance like?




Virtualization, when used in this context, is not emulation.



No, that's what virtualization means: you take a physical piece of hardware and make the same piece available virtually, to share resources.


Thanks that makes much more sense.
 
If running demanding software on Windows is your goal, you shouldn't be using a Mac in the first place.

Why?

That being said, and I do not understand it, but Apple showed ARM Macs emulating x86 software on the fly including Tomb Raider game. Along with things like Wine, maybe the software you need can run without Windows OS in the first place.

I think chucker32n1 answered that much better than I could. That 'emulation on the fly' is about Mac apps, not Windows apps. I also don't know much about Wine, but I'm guessing that isn't for running CAD/3D apps.
 
If running demanding software on Windows is your goal, you shouldn't be using a Mac in the first place.
Why?
To me, it's not so much that you shouldn't be using a Mac; it's what level of performance do you need to be productive? If a MBP/VM combo doesn't have the needed performance, a mid level Win10 laptop probably doesn't either, so yo really need a more powerful machine. Now, if you're running a VM on a topped out mac pro, then a Mac may be enough.

Another possibility is a native app may also be needed if a VM introduces enough lag in data capture to render it useless.

In my case, Parallels and a MBP's perfromance is roughly on par with my HP Envy 360 running a Ryzen 5 4500u and 8GB of memory. The Envy is a mid-range laptop; but it's fine for my non-gaming needs; which means my MBP/VM also meet those needs. I really don't see any performance differences between the two so I stick with Parallels.
 
That's good that it's free for personal use. I wonder what constitutes commercial use? A VM that's attached to a domain?

I believe that you are using it for business uses. Running it at home so you can run Windows to run some software for Windows is one thing. But installing it on a work PC is different.

With current Workstation (Linux and Windows hosts) the Player is paid support or free for personal use. The Pro is pricier, and not free. The Pro version has additional features, like snapshots. Enough extra features that I would continue to pay for Fusion even though it is for personal use.

When Player first came out, you couldn't create new VMs. And many people still think that is the same limitation.
 
Your license should be upgraded without any action on your part. If you bought the standard version, you will receive a commercial license for Fusion Player (since it's free for personal use); if you bought a pro license you will receive a new license key that will work with both Fusion Pro and Workstation Pro. (Since starting with 12 Fusion Pro license work with Workstation Pro for windows and linux.)

From VMware:


Thanks this is helpful !
 
Any idea when this will be released? Also is it possible to convert a Parallels VM to VMWare? I’ve grown tired of paying $100 a year for the last 4 years for two upgrade licenses...
 
Any idea when this will be released? Also is it possible to convert a Parallels VM to VMWare? I’ve grown tired of paying $100 a year for the last 4 years for two upgrade licenses...
Past editionas have supported imprting a PVM:


You can also use a Bootcamp partition created by Apple's Boot Camp Assistant:

 
  • Like
Reactions: stiligFox
To me, it's not so much that you shouldn't be using a Mac; it's what level of performance do you need to be productive? If a MBP/VM combo doesn't have the needed performance, a mid level Win10 laptop probably doesn't either, so yo really need a more powerful machine. Now, if you're running a VM on a topped out mac pro, then a Mac may be enough.

Another possibility is a native app may also be needed if a VM introduces enough lag in data capture to render it useless.

In my case, Parallels and a MBP's perfromance is roughly on par with my HP Envy 360 running a Ryzen 5 4500u and 8GB of memory. The Envy is a mid-range laptop; but it's fine for my non-gaming needs; which means my MBP/VM also meet those needs. I really don't see any performance differences between the two so I stick with Parallels.

Yeah, I mostly agree. But, the reason I asked why, is that I can buy just as powerful of a Mac as I can a PC, so why would the need to run demanding software mean I should just buy a PC?

If you do Boot Camp, it's 1:1. With x86 in the Mac and VM, it's not all that far off 1:1 except for GPU performance, and it takes more resources... but there are lots of benefits, too.
 
already dropping support for mojave. Have to say, software support on mac is absolutely garbage. On the windows side, stuff still supports windows 7
 
already dropping support for mojave. Have to say, software support on mac is absolutely garbage. On the windows side, stuff still supports windows 7
That's mostly a function of Apple. Mojave is off support the moment Big Sur arrives. They have a willingness to make major changes with short deprecation windows, forcing developers to scramble. Catalina got rid of 32 bit software, Big Sur got rid of kexts. Windows 10 will support 32 bit software for years to come.
 
That's mostly a function of Apple. Mojave is off support the moment Big Sur arrives. They have a willingness to make major changes with short deprecation windows, forcing developers to scramble. Catalina got rid of 32 bit software, Big Sur got rid of kexts. Windows 10 will support 32 bit software for years to come.
but mojave is still supported. High sierra(10.13) is what gets axed as soon as BS arrives. Apple supports the last 2 versions with security updates plus the latest version
 
but mojave is still supported. High sierra(10.13) is what gets axed as soon as BS arrives. Apple supports the last 2 versions with security updates plus the latest version
Sorry, brain cramp. Also Fusion 11 goes out of support Dec 2020 so there will be a 10 month period where Mojave will be viable but have no supported version of Fusion.
 
Is there currently a cost-effective cloud-based VM for Windows? I have an intel based app that I rely on for my business and currently run everything from Mac OS using VMWare. It's the only windows app I use but it's a necessity for my business. With Apple going ARM, I worry that when my current laptop eventually dies or needs to be replaced, I'll be screwed unless there's a cloud based alternative I could use?
 
Is there currently a cost-effective cloud-based VM for Windows? I have an intel based app that I rely on for my business and currently run everything from Mac OS using VMWare. It's the only windows app I use but it's a necessity for my business. With Apple going ARM, I worry that when my current laptop eventually dies or needs to be replaced, I'll be screwed unless there's a cloud based alternative I could use?
There re a number, but from what I've seen the focus is on businesses where price is less important than performance and reliablity. There may be some free or low cost (AWS?) solutions.

Another option is to buy an inexpensive winboxen and remote desktop to it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.