Exactly. I'll be installing Monterey on my 7 year old MBP when it's released.Monterey runs on macs from 2013.
Exactly. I'll be installing Monterey on my 7 year old MBP when it's released.Monterey runs on macs from 2013.
Nope, not for arm. Read the eula, even the insider is restricted.
It is a mess isn’t it? Like Windows 10 has the old control panel from Win 7, the “we’re also a tablet” settings from Win 8 and a whole new layer of settings for Win 10. It’s like all you have to do is keep scratching the surface to find the stuff that worked 12 years ago.
I’ll give MS the benefit of the doubt that it’s been cleaned up in Win 11 but the strategy for it seems to be more in-line with competing with Chromebooks then fixing Windows problems.
So they’re going to violate the windows 11 eula too?
the windows 10 one clearly states you can only install if the license was sold with the machine. Did win 11 change?
Apple would have to provide Windows Drivers for it, and they surely won't...I thought Microsoft is going to release Windows 11 for Mac and was like WHAT
That is true. The irony is, that you can run the newest Windows 10 version on a 10 years old Mac, but you cannot run officially the newest version of macOS.The difference is Windows can run on some pretty old hardware. Apple, on the other hand, gives users of older Apple stuff the big middle finger and says "F you" after 5-6 years.
And since 12 is a bigger number than 11, MacOS wins!Windows 11? Pft, we've got MacOS 12 coming soon.
I thought Microsoft is going to release Windows 11 for Mac and was like WHAT
If it's anything like the transition to Windows 10 via Bootcamp, Yes. But not from a Clean Install in the Mac's BootCamp app. You'd need to run thru a Windows 10 install first in BootCamp and THEN upgrade to Windows 11. At least until probably macOS 12 is released with some "official" BootCamp support.Will this run windows on macs with an intel processor below gen 8 processors, I heard Microsoft is looking into bringing support for gen 7 processors, I saw a video that they technically support as far back as gen 6 processors.
How would competing in a market be anti-competitive?Microsoft would probably find itself defending against charges of anti-competitive behaviour before they'd even got the product to market. Too much hurt - let someone else do the VM development/support, still benefit from all the additional Windows license fees.
Uh huh... gaming on the PC is such a HORRIBLE experience:Do you know what the problem with Windows is?
They do not know who to be.
....
I like the new interface but in two clicks I know I am going to face the old applications with the same lack of user experience. There is where Macs run on top of them.
So they’re going to violate the windows 11 eula too?
the windows 10 one clearly states you can only install if the license was sold with the machine. Did win 11 change?
It happened slower than I expected...a whole 8 minutes after the original post. Sigh...
Hopefully Windows 11 will be available and compatible with VMWare and Parallels. I imagine that for the vast majority of users of Windows VMs on the Mac are only using it for the odd app here or there and just needs something that works rather than blistering performance. I for one use a Windows only app almost every day but it doesn't require any kind of real power so any reasonable x86 emulation that might be baked into Windows 11 arm will likely be more than sufficient. If I needed more power, I'd use a dedicated physical Windows machine.
I won’t go to m1 until they have bootcamp
Why doesn't Microsoft just sell their own containerized version of Windows 11 that will run on a Mac?
You double-click the icon... and a virtualized *legal* copy of Windows 11 runs in a self-contained environment.
Microsoft could sell it for $100 to those who really need it. And Microsoft would control the experience.
Why are 3rd-parties like Parallels responsible for making this work?
Let's be real. They would sell it for $200, but they would likely put it in the App store.
Thing is, they don't have to make it themselves, and yet they still get paid for each license. Plus, every time Apple or Microsoft comes out with an update Microsoft gets tons of free press when reports that "Windows now runs on the new Apple [Blank]!" come out.
On install, the EULA says it can only be installed on equipment it originally was sold with.
That means that installing it, violates the EULA. That means that when parallels themselves installed it to develop support they violated the EULA. They are also encouraging users to violate it.
This is the sole reason that Fusion doesn't have support yet. VMWare respects license agreements. Parallels doesn't. I don't want to support a company that violates IP rights.
Great. Now maybe someday they'll support Big Sur as a guest OS on an M1 machine. Currently, when you try to run Big Sur as a guest, it says "intel-based OSs are not supported on M1 hosts."
The popular software for virtualizing Windows on macOS, Parallels Desktop, has confirmed that support for the newly announced Windows 11 is in the works for Mac computers.
![]()
Last week, Microsoft unveiled Windows 11, the next major version of the Windows operating system. Obviously, Windows 11 won't be supported on Mac computers, but as is normal, some Mac users run virtualized desktops on their Mac with Windows.
As reported by iMore, Parallels has confirmed that it is waiting to dig into Windows 11, once all of its features, such as Teams integration and Android apps, are released and part of the Windows 11 Preview build before they starting working on Mac compatibility. As per the report:
No specifics were given, but Parallels did say that it "will surely do everything that's possible to make it happen." On Intel-based Mac computers, users can natively run Windows using Boot Camp, as well as through virtualization. However, running Windows natively through Boot Camp is no longer possible on all Apple silicon Macs, leaving virtualization to be the only option.
Article Link: Windows 11 for Mac in the Works, Says Parallels Desktop
I’d believe that if Xbox wasn’t a thing.MS no doubt doesn't want the headaches of maintaining compatibility with each OS release for what would be a low ROI product.
Could you please elaborate? I've been a paying Parallels customer since v5 (current is v16.5) and although the actual price can be debated, I've had nothing but good things come from being able to run Windows on my Macs.Yea, screw Parallels for life for all of their past customer-hostile practices. I'm never giving those guys a penny ever again.
MS no doubt doesn't want the headaches of maintaining compatibility with each OS release for what would be a low ROI product.