Windows 11 for Mac in the Works, Says Parallels Desktop

[MacBH928]

If you are looking to run Windows apps I highly recommend Crossover , it runs on M1. It doesn't run all the software perfect but you can look it up. I will be interested to hear about your results.

Just to not confuse yourself, Crossover is paid software that is like a user friendly shell/cover to the open source+free WINE project that runs Windows apps on POSIX(Linux, Unix, MacOS) systems. WINE does not run on M1 but Crossover makes it work somehow.

 

[bobcomer]

Then I expect parallel announces no windows support very soon.

Not me. Nothing has changed since they supported the Win10 insiders build.

They apparently think it's okay and are probably hoping Microsoft wouldn't go after them, which I suspect is true. VMWare is a much bigger company though, so they'd be a target.

Who knows, Microsoft could really settle things one way or another, and I hope they do, as it makes my decision on my next home machine easier.

 

[bobcomer]

If you are looking to run Windows apps I highly recommend Crossover , it runs on M1. It doesn't run all the software perfect but you can look it up. I will be interested to hear about your results.

Just to not confuse yourself, Crossover is paid software that is like a user friendly shell/cover to the open source+free WINE project that runs Windows apps on POSIX(Linux, Unix, MacOS) systems. WINE does not run on M1 but Crossover makes it work somehow.

Crossover is good if you want to use mainstream apps that they specifically support -- for other stuff, it is not good. I'm a paid for licensee and I haven't used it past the first week.

 

[Shirasaki]

Not me. Nothing has changed since they supported the Win10 insiders build.

They apparently think it's okay and are probably hoping Microsoft wouldn't go after them, which I suspect is true. VMWare is a much bigger company though, so they'd be a target.

Who knows, Microsoft could really settle things one way or another, and I hope they do, as it makes my decision on my next home machine easier.

Oh well. I thought parallel was a big company.
If Microsoft goes after them, the only viable solution would be those even smaller open source virtual machine, or KVM of some sort. All depends on how Microsoft values lawyers cost vs perceived damage to their windows sales.

 

[827538]

I'd be impressed if they got Windows 11 running well on ARM Macs, now that would be something.

 

[ctucci]

How'd you accomplish that? I'm running Windows 10 Arm64 in a Parallels 16 VM. Told me I needed TPM2.0 to install Win 11. Do I need a different VM?

I downloaded the Parallels m1 compatible hypervisor, then sought a link to arm windows. That led me to a MS preview for ARM64 that I d/l'd. I instantiated that image, and just let it run. At some point, I got a pop up that said "Restart Windows to install new features". And next thing I know, I see this the attached.

 

[Icelus]

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.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1404935546208768002

 

[Icelus]

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.

That's about to change.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1408587013205409793

 

[Admiralbison]

Of course they'll do "everything that's possible to make it happen". That is literally their business model.

And I am great full for their business.

I rely heavily on Windows for work and I don’t want to be carrying two separate laptops.

 

[Admiralbison]

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.

Definitely will, Parralels and other VM applications depend on this as their business, MS makes money where Windows is and there are Mac Users that use Windows for work.

For me I need Windows for work.
Just easier using the same OS to the same Operating environment Without having to be selective of the applications to run natively on MacOS.
-Office suite
-Teams
-Active Directory, Office 365 on premise Admin (I.T. stuff)
-Sharepoint

MacOS I personally use at home with Video and audio editing

 

[williedigital]

I guess you haven't followed the open source side of this. It took one person "dosdude" to allow later versions of OSX work on these "obsolete" machines. It's not like there is some huge amazing new codebase that won't run efficiently--all he's done is strip out the code that apple ADDED to prevent the later osx from being run on them. It's a business decision, not a technical one.

I just used logic. Resource availability isn't necessary to make a conclusion.

 

[bobcomer]

Oh well. I thought parallel was a big company.

It depends on your definition of big. Parallels has branched out from their virtualization beginnings, so they're not small, but VMWare has a *big* market presence.

If Microsoft goes after them, the only viable solution would be those even smaller open source virtual machine, or KVM of some sort. All depends on how Microsoft values lawyers cost vs perceived damage to their windows sales.

There's also remote desktop solutions.

But I wouldn't worry too much yet. I don't think it's a legality issue, just something Microsoft can sue Parallels over, and EULA's aren't the easiest thing to defend given what I've seen before. As an IT Manager I *have* to take it seriously for company computers, as I wouldn't want the company I work for exposed to any kind of action. And I can't really encourage others to break the EULA...

 

[chucker23n1]

Yah, that's not how my (VMware...)'s lawyers interpret the EULA.

OEM is only sold to OEMs, obvi, but the Insider Preview EULA states that it can only be installed on devices that already came with Windows on ARM pre-installed (which includes all of 0 Mac devices).

I feel like my post is being taken out of context.

The original question seemed to imply that any use of Windows 11 in a VM (or any use of Windows 11 in a VM on a Mac? Unclear) is an EULA violation. Then someone followed up about ARM. But the original post didn't mention ARM. On x86, retail licenses of Windows exist. Developer licenses of Windows exist. Volume licenses exist. None of those have the restrictions the OEM version does.

As for ARM, to my knowledge, only OEM licenses exist, yes.

Now, IANAL, but: whether that means you can't personally use it depends on the country. In Germany, for example, the shrinkwrap doctrine effectively means that you can't tell a customer after the fact (after they've bought it and removed the shrink wrap from the physical box) that additional restrictions apply. And a court ruled that Microsoft can't force vendors to only sell OEM licenses as a bundle — therefore, you can in fact legally buy an OEM copy and use that.

Regardless, clearly the intent so far of MS isn't to have Windows on ARM Macs, probably because they can't agree with Apple on licensing terms. But my original post wasn't about ARM.

 

[RedRaven571]

I'd be impressed if they got Windows 11 running well on ARM Macs, now that would be something.

Stepping WAAYY outside my knowledge base but on the Win11 press releases, it says it can run on system on a chip, might that not apply to the M1 chip and successors, or am I totally off base?

 

[chucker23n1]

Stepping WAAYY outside my knowledge base but on the Win11 press releases, it says it can run on system on a chip, might that not apply to the M1 chip and successors, or am I totally off base?

As far as performance goes, it would run fine. It's unclear how the TPM requirement plays into it, as ARM Macs don't have one (I presume this doesn't apply for VMs, but I'm not sure yet).

The main sticking point, really, is that Microsoft doesn't currently allow it.

 

[jlc1978]

Because MS would have an uncompetitive advantage over its competitors through its inside knowledge of Windows, its ability to make changes to Windows to provide an optimum experience under its own VM, and potentially to 'accidentally' cripple competitor's VMs with changes to Windows.

While it would give them a competitive advantage, and no doubt severely cripple the VM market for OS X; they would not even have to break other VMs for their's to be the most popular.

Not me. Nothing has changed since they supported the Win10 insiders build.

They apparently think it's okay and are probably hoping Microsoft wouldn't go after them, which I suspect is true. VMWare is a much bigger company though, so they'd be a target.

Who knows, Microsoft could really settle things one way or another, and I hope they do, as it makes my decision on my next home machine easier.

I doubt MS has any interest in going after Parallels or VMware or Oracle. MS is not really a hardware company so VM installs don't really impact them that much, if at all. None of them are selling bootleg copies of Windows, and as a plus keep Windows in front of some small % of Mac users.

It's not like Apple, where a good VM could noticeably impact sales of hardware.

It depends on your definition of big. Parallels has branched out from their virtualization beginnings, so they're not small, but VMWare has a *big* market presence.

Yea, VWWare's OS X VM seems to have become more of a side product; as evidenced by their free version.

But I wouldn't worry too much yet. I don't think it's a legality issue, just something Microsoft can sue Parallels over, and EULA's aren't the easiest thing to defend given what I've seen before. As an IT Manager I *have* to take it seriously for company computers, as I wouldn't want the company I work for exposed to any kind of action. And I can't really encourage others to break the EULA...

Understand that. You no doubt would shoulder the blame if that happened.

But Xbox doesn’t make any money. The consoles are sold at a loss, game pass is sold at a loss, and royalties don’t make up that difference. Xbox exists solely because Microsoft wants to be in the video game market.

All Microsoft would need to make a Mac version of windows is the desire to be on the Mac.

Console hardware has been sold at a loss as a business model for some time; since the real money is in the recurring sales of games and now subscriptions, which requires a large user base to attract developers. Even MS Says that.

However, that doesn't mean gaming is not profitable and a growing market:

"With more than 23 game studios creating games, more than 100 million monthly active Xbox players, and more than 18 million Xbox Game Pass subscribers across console, mobile, and PC, the gaming business is a profitable and high-growth business for Microsoft," they wrote in a statement. "The console gaming business is traditionally a hardware subsidy model. Game companies sell consoles at a loss to attract new customers. Profits are generated in game sales and online service subscriptions."

Microsoft’s overall gaming revenue is up $1.2 billion (50 percent), after reaching $5 billion for the first quarter ever last quarter, thanks mainly to Xbox content, services, and Xbox hardware.

VM's would never match that market size or growth.

MS actually had a VM that ran on the Mac - Virtual PC, a product they got when they bought Connectix. It ran slow, and was more of a wow, look at this. Before that, Apple ]['s had the PC Transporter, which essentially was a PC in an Apple ][ slot' so there is a long history of MS OS and Apple computers coexisting in the same boxen. It's just not worth MS' time and money to invest in that market now. If they wanted to they could simply buy Parallels.

If anything, Cloud based Windows VMs are much more interesting than desktop ones.

 

[chucker23n1]

I doubt MS has any interest in going after Parallels or VMware or Oracle.

On the contrary, MS Hyper-V absolutely competes with VMware EXSi.

They might not be interested in the consumer market, though (and apparently, VMware's interest is also waning).

MS actually had a VM that ran on the Mac - Virtual PC, a product they got when they bought Connectix. It ran slow,

Virtual PC was slow like Real PC (I'm not being cute; that was the product name) was, because they were x86 emulators.

Key pieces of Virtual PC ended up in other products such as Hyper-V. You can still see, if you squint, that Hyper-V's UI originates from what was once Virtual PC.

 

[jlc1978]

On the contrary, MS Hyper-V absolutely competes with VMware EXSi.

They might not be interested in the consumer market, though (and apparently, VMware's interest is also waning).

Yea, I should have been more specific as to the consumer market, or more pointedly VMs on non-Windows machines.

Virtual PC was slow like Real PC (I'm not being cute; that was the product name) was, because they were x86 emulators.

Key pieces of Virtual PC ended up in other products such as Hyper-V. You can still see, if you squint, that Hyper-V's UI originates from what was once Virtual PC.

Yea, I remember years ago doing a review on Virtual PC when it was still a Connectix product. Hyper-V certainly grew from VPC.

 

[4jasontv]

Console hardware has been sold at a loss as a business model for some time; since the real money is in the recurring sales of games and now subscriptions, which requires a large user base to attract developers. Even MS Says that.

However, that doesn't mean gaming is not profitable and a growing market:

"With more than 23 game studios creating games, more than 100 million monthly active Xbox players, and more than 18 million Xbox Game Pass subscribers across console, mobile, and PC, the gaming business is a profitable and high-growth business for Microsoft," they wrote in a statement. "The console gaming business is traditionally a hardware subsidy model. Game companies sell consoles at a loss to attract new customers. Profits are generated in game sales and online service subscriptions."

Microsoft’s overall gaming revenue is up $1.2 billion (50 percent), after reaching $5 billion for the first quarter ever last quarter, thanks mainly to Xbox content, services, and Xbox hardware.

This tells me the Microsoft Gaming Division is profitable, not the XBox platform. You simply can’t conclude Xbox specifically is profitable from the report you cited. But let’s assume you are correct and it is profitable now. This is a new development. There was a time when Xbox wasn’t profitable, even with games and subscriptions. My whole point was that Microsoft is in gaming industry because they want to be. Most companies would have killed the Xbox, but Microsoft wanted to be in the living room. That’s my point. If they wanted to have VM on the Mac they would.

 

[mzeb]

If PowerPC and the dream of G5 laptops should have taught us anything, it's not to forecast CPU trends too far into the future. I recall people being amazed at the spped of the first Intel dev system like they are now with apple silicon.

Aye, that's a true one. Although I think we're a bit further down this road than we were with the PPC transition. Intel is here to stay for a while because the server market is slow to move but the consumer market has been ditching intel since even before the M1s came out. Tablets have found their niche and have been replacing intel at the low end along side chrome books. Yeah, some chrome books are intel based but not the majority.

 

[velocityg4]

Regardless, clearly the intent so far of MS isn't to have Windows on ARM Macs, probably because they can't agree with Apple on licensing terms. But my original post wasn't about ARM.

From my limited understanding of the issues with ARM. I think the reason why MS is holding back on retail sale of the ARM version is compatibility problems. Unlike x86. ARM isn't as unified in the BIOS and auto detection fronts. Making it difficult for MS to create a one size fits all OS. I'd assume this extends to key components working off limited generic drivers until the proper driver is found and installed.

MS would likely be more than happy to make a full fledged retail version. Anyone including Mac owners can buy. At least for now they have to work with individual OEMs or chipmakers to get Windows to load on their ARM variants. I suspect once MS is satisfied that Parallels is reliable and compatible. They'll allow the company to sell a Parallels + Windows bundle.

 

[jlc1978]

I think we are in violent agreement overall here.

This tells me the Microsoft Gaming Division is profitable, not the XBox platform. You simply can’t conclude Xbox specifically is profitable from the report you cited.

I do not make that claim. If you go back to my OP:

Xbox is a different strategy, it's about content and subscription revenue streams.

it's pretty clear, IMHO, what I was referring to as part of MS' strategy for the xBox, which of course is gaming sales.

XBox is a loss leader because it drives gaming revenue. They need a platform to be in that market, and the xBox is that platform. They clearly think PC gaming is not enough to drive the growth they want in their gaming division; which makes sense because the cost of entry can be a lot higher than an xBox for a comparable gaming rig.

But let’s assume you are correct and it is profitable now. This is a new development. There was a time when Xbox wasn’t profitable, even with games and subscriptions. My whole point was that Microsoft is in gaming industry because they want to be. Most companies would have killed the Xbox, but Microsoft wanted to be in the living room. That’s my point.

Mine as well; just with the caveat you can't separate the xBox from the gaming market since it is integral to MS' strategy in that market. They can lose money on each xBox, because the revenue it will bring in over its life more than makes up for the upfront hit.

There results bear me out:

Microsoft's overall gaming revenue is up $1.2 billion (50 percent), after reaching $5 billion for the first quarter ever last quarter, thanks mainly to Xbox content, services, and Xbox hardware.

xBox is more than just hardware for MS.

If they wanted to have VM on the Mac they would.

Which is what I also said. They just don't want to be there, even if they have in the past, most likely because the money and growth isn't there relative to the investment.

 

[jlc1978]

I suspect once MS is satisfied that Parallels is reliable and compatible. They'll allow the company to sell a Parallels + Windows bundle.

I doubt it. Having used parallels since its early days, I never remember them selling such a bundle. At best they'd make it easy to buy a retail version:

Parallels Desktop for Mac does not include Microsoft® Windows.

You can purchase Windows 10 using Parallels Desktop interface. Visit the article below for more information.

How do I get Windows 10 to run in a virtual machine?

Or you can purchase it directly from Microsoft official website:

• Buy Windows 10 Home
• Buy Windows 10 Pro

If you want to buy any other version of Windows or do not have Windows installation disc or .iso disk image at all, please visit Microsoft Online Store or online retailers such as Amazon.

 

[velocityg4]

I doubt it. Having used parallels since its early days, I never remember them selling such a bundle. At best they'd make it easy to buy a retail version:

Parallels Desktop for Mac does not include Microsoft® Windows.

You can purchase Windows 10 using Parallels Desktop interface. Visit the article below for more information.

How do I get Windows 10 to run in a virtual machine?

Or you can purchase it directly from Microsoft official website:

• Buy Windows 10 Home
• Buy Windows 10 Pro

If you want to buy any other version of Windows or do not have Windows installation disc or .iso disk image at all, please visit Microsoft Online Store or online retailers such as Amazon.

They didn't need to before. As people could just bring a copy of Windows. Those editions listed are x86/64. Unless Windows for ARM is released for the general public to buy. They may have to. To convince corporate buyers and many others to continue using it. As I doubt they'll get many people outside of dedicated enthusiasts to sign up for the insider preview.

Quote: https://www.theverge.com/22383598/parallels-desktop-mac-windows-10-install-m1-macbook
The main drawback is that you’ll need to run a preview version of Windows to make this all work. Microsoft only currently licenses the Arm version of Windows 10 to PC makers, so there’s no official way to buy a copy yet. The software maker does provide a Windows 10 on Arm preview build, which can be downloaded from Microsoft’s Windows Insider website.

 

[gank41]

I feel like my post is being taken out of context.

The original question seemed to imply that any use of Windows 11 in a VM (or any use of Windows 11 in a VM on a Mac? Unclear) is an EULA violation. Then someone followed up about ARM. But the original post didn't mention ARM. On x86, retail licenses of Windows exist. Developer licenses of Windows exist. Volume licenses exist. None of those have the restrictions the OEM version does.

As for ARM, to my knowledge, only OEM licenses exist, yes.

Now, IANAL, but: whether that means you can't personally use it depends on the country. In Germany, for example, the shrinkwrap doctrine effectively means that you can't tell a customer after the fact (after they've bought it and removed the shrink wrap from the physical box) that additional restrictions apply. And a court ruled that Microsoft can't force vendors to only sell OEM licenses as a bundle — therefore, you can in fact legally buy an OEM copy and use that.

Regardless, clearly the intent so far of MS isn't to have Windows on ARM Macs, probably because they can't agree with Apple on licensing terms. But my original post wasn't about ARM.

"Windows for Mac in the works, says Parallels Desktop" actually DOES imply to some degree that they're also including Windows 11 on ARM because Apple has already made very clear that they're completely transitioning away from Intel to AS. So, generally speaking here, if Parallels is saying they're going to support Windows 11 for Mac, in a year when someone wants to buy a new MacBook Air and put Windows 11 on it via Parallels, the customer is going to assume it will "just work". Clearly Parallels is saying they don't want to miss this train.