Windows 11 for Mac in the Works, Says Parallels Desktop

[4jasontv]

I think we are in violent agreement overall here.



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.



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.



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.

Great. So we agree on the destination but disagree on the path. I still think you can separate the Xbox division because Microsoft had a gaming division before Xbox, which was profitable without xbox. XBox, alone, is not profitable. It doesn’t matter if it’s integral to their strategy (which I agree) but rather that at many other companies, such as Samsung, they would have killed it years ago because it doesn’t generate a profit.

Which I suspect we can both agree is an example of foresight over in Redmond. They can see the value of Xbox’s impact on other parts of their business. The non-Xbox parts of their gaming division do not need Xbox to make a profit but they do better because Xbox exists. So while Xbox, doesn’t make them money directly it allows them presence in a market that would otherwise me lost.

I just think it’s misleading to claim Xbox is profitable when it’s not. It would be like claiming Apple’s Ping! Social Network service was profitable because it was part of the iTunes division.

 

[JMacHack]

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?

Listening to the eula is for nerds. They can’t stop dedicated pirates and other freedom lovers from using it.

 

[chucker23n1]

"Windows for Mac in the works, says Parallels Desktop" actually DOES imply to some degree that they're also including Windows 11 on ARM

I get that, but really, this is all I originally responded to:

"What about ARM?" is a valid question in response to that, but it's not what I was speaking about. I don't know if @MallardDuck was.

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.

No argument there.

I wasn't so much responding to the article as to that particular post.

 

[jlc1978]

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.

I agree. My point was they never bundled and I doubt, even if an retail version of indows for ARM comes about they would bundle it. If bundling were profitable they'd do it with their current lineup, IMHO.

Great. So we agree on the destination but disagree on the path. I still think you can separate the Xbox division because Microsoft had a gaming division before Xbox, which was profitable without xbox. XBox, alone, is not profitable. It doesn’t matter if it’s integral to their strategy (which I agree) but rather that at many other companies, such as Samsung, they would have killed it years ago because it doesn’t generate a profit.

Fair enough.

Which I suspect we can both agree is an example of foresight over in Redmond. They can see the value of Xbox’s impact on other parts of their business. The non-Xbox parts of their gaming division do not need Xbox to make a profit but they do better because Xbox exists. So while Xbox, doesn’t make them money directly it allows them presence in a market that would otherwise me lost.

Exactly. They are willing, smart enough, and have the cash, to use the xBox to drive game sales even if the xBox hardware is sold at a loss.

I just think it’s misleading to claim Xbox is profitable when it’s not. It would be like claiming Apple’s Ping! Social Network service was profitable because it was part of the iTunes division.

Fair enough, as you pointed out the end point is the same and it's somewhat of a semantic point as to is it isn't.

Cheers,

 

[Schismz]

The best (IMO) example of this was when Apple killed off Aperture. Aperture was my go-to photo app. It was reasonably priced and had just the right features for a lot of users.

Aperture was cool, but at the time it was developed Lightroom did not exist. To my recollection Lightroom debuted on OS/X about a year later, and then proceeded to dominate that market to the point where Aperture I guess wasn't very important to Apple anymore and they abandoned it. Bummer, I liked it too.

Having said that, Final Cut & Logic Pro are alive and well and highly excellent. Unsure why Aperture could not gain enough traction from "pro" users to make it worthwhile for Apple to continue development.

Aperture was a "pro app" tho, it wasn't an OS release.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Having said that, Final Cut & Logic Pro are alive and well and highly excellent. Unsure why Aperture could not gain enough traction from "pro" users to make it worthwhile for Apple to continue development.

Yeah it always seemed weird that Apple had pro apps for music, video, and photography... then they completely abandoned photography.

Obviously... video is a hot topic today. But with the proliferation of digital cameras over the last two decades... I would guess there are still more people shooting photos than making music with Logic, for instance.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[velocityg4]

I agree. My point was they never bundled and I doubt, even if an retail version of indows for ARM comes about they would bundle it. If bundling were profitable they'd do it with their current lineup, IMHO.

If a retail version comes out. I doubt they'd bundle it either. I just think they'll bundle it if their only option is to bundle it or tell people to jump through hoops joining Microsoft's Insider Program. Probably getting the same price from MS as OEM manufacturers get.

Microsoft is likely motivated to get this out to Parallels and work with them. As Parallels probably represents a larger potential Windows on ARM market than all current ARM computers running Windows.

 

[34Skyline]

wonder which one will be best VMware or Parallels and which one good for gaming, Hope Apple updates bootcamp one more time to support 11, My Mac Pro 7,1 does not support TPM 2.0

​

 

[MacBH928]

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.

depends which apps not all apps works great, if you are hoping that Adobe Premier to work with zero issues you probably set the bar high. which specific apps you found it not good for?

 

[827538]

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?

I know Microsoft have built half baked ARM versions. SoC != ARM so I doubt this will, it’s a massive shift for Windows to be ARM compatible.

 

[bobcomer]

depends which apps not all apps works great, if you are hoping that Adobe Premier to work with zero issues you probably set the bar high. which specific apps you found it not good for?

Everything I tried basically. corporate apps, IBM Notes, and that's when I gave up.

 

[ArPe]

As long as MS sticks to it's guns on TPM 2.0. MacOS will support computers older than Windows 11 does. There's even plenty of reports on computers less than a year old not working. Plus loads of people can't figure out how to enable TPM. As much of the computers with TPM support leave it disabled by default.

Yeah I ran tpm.msc and it said my PC doesn’t have TPM. I went into the BIOS and enabled the Intel Trusted Computing option and now I have TPM 2.0. It’s built into the Intel 9900K CPU, I don’t have a module on the mobo.

 

[31 Flavas]

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.

Must be something specific, your computer, your account, or maybe the image?- because it doesn't work for me. The download of the Win 11 installer happens, but only ever says "Requires TMP 2.0".

But, no big whoop - only passing curiosity about Win 11.

 

[Tech198]

Parallels won't get far without a License...

Windows 11 surly can't possibly be extended from other windows clients that require a license to run on ARM, or a specific ARM version of Windows 11..That's why no other version, but the Windows 10 insider works.

Must be something specific, your computer, your account, or maybe the image?- because it doesn't work for me. The download of the Win 11 installer happens, but only ever says "Requires TMP 2.0".

But, no big whoop - only passing curiosity about Win 11.

VWare has TPM support in virtual hardware, so just click "Add device" VMWar will no doubt updated TPM when, and if, its becomes true.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

They would tell us if they did. (on their website -- it would be a marketing point!)

Not necessarily. There are such things as licenses signed under non-disclosure agreement (and if Parallels got a license from Microsoft to install Windows in a VM purely for development purposes, that wouldn’t be a marketing point even if the license wasn’t under NDA).

Also, bear in mind that (unless I’ve missed something) Parallels are not selling a product that officially supports Windows 11. Parallels have not even announced such a product (MacRumors’ breathless reporting notwithstanding). Perhaps Microsoft are taking the attitude that if Parallels want to spend their own time and money working on support for a product that Microsoft may or may not decide to let them ship but that might potentially Microsoft, then great!

Parallels don’t seem to me to have a history of disregarding OS end-user license agreements. Remember that no version of Parallels Desktop ever supported Snow Leopard as a guest OS (despite being the last version of Mac OS X to include Rosetta), simply because the Snow Leopard EULA did not permit virtualization. (As soon as virtualization was permitted in the Lion EULA, Parallels supported it.)

At any rate, if Parallels are indeed violating the terms of whatever license they have, and if Microsoft actually have a problem with that, I’m sure they’ll let Parallels know. I think you can rest easy in the comforting assurance that Microsoft are well able to look after themselves.

 

[MacBH928]

Everything I tried basically. corporate apps, IBM Notes, and that's when I gave up.

Yea...those complex ones won't fair well. For corporate apps, things are more serious so you might want to get a dedicated machine or some powerful Mac that can run Windows VM.

 

[bobcomer]

Not necessarily. There are such things as licenses signed under non-disclosure agreement (and if Parallels got a license from Microsoft to install Windows in a VM purely for development purposes, that wouldn’t be a marketing point even if the license wasn’t under NDA).

Also, bear in mind that (unless I’ve missed something) Parallels are not selling a product that officially supports Windows 11. Parallels have not even announced such a product (MacRumors’ breathless reporting notwithstanding). Perhaps Microsoft are taking the attitude that if Parallels want to spend their own time and money working on support for a product that Microsoft may or may not decide to let them ship but that might potentially Microsoft, then great!

Parallels don’t seem to me to have a history of disregarding OS end-user license agreements. Remember that no version of Parallels Desktop ever supported Snow Leopard as a guest OS (despite being the last version of Mac OS X to include Rosetta), simply because the Snow Leopard EULA did not permit virtualization. (As soon as virtualization was permitted in the Lion EULA, Parallels supported it.)

At any rate, if Parallels are indeed violating the terms of whatever license they have, and if Microsoft actually have a problem with that, I’m sure they’ll let Parallels know. I think you can rest easy in the comforting assurance that Microsoft are well able to look after themselves.

Parallels officially supports Windows 10, even its insider only, non licensable, way. I doubt Win11 changes anything..

I don't care about Microsoft, that's not why I post anything here. They can take care of themselves!

I just can't fall into the unlicensed trap and I will post the same to others. It's up to them to break, or not to break, the EULA of course, at least my conscience is clear on the issue.

As for non disclosure, never heard of it for a public facing licensing agreement, but whatever -- until they actually announce it, it's not there for us users of Parallels.

 

[bobcomer]

Yea...those complex ones won't fair well. For corporate apps, things are more serious so you might want to get a dedicated machine or some powerful Mac that can run Windows VM.

My main Mac is an Intel Mac Mini that is quite capable of running multiple VM's.

I've only tried things like crossover on my M1 Mac, and when I'm using Linux.

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

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.

Have seen the list of CPU’s this version runs on? Microsoft has cut out anything prior to 2018. They probably cave and change that but the current list is 8th gen Intel or higher plus TPM 2.0

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

I won’t go to m1 until they have bootcamp

Why do you even have a Mac if Windows is so important to you?

I have not run Windows on a Mac via boot camp in 7 years or more. I think I had a Windows VM 5 years ago to run some app, can’t remember what it was now??

There is zero need to run Windows on a Mac in 2021. So much stuff is web based, is also on Mac or has great alternatives on Mac.

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

We're I in MS's shoes I'd be noticing the writing is on the wall for Intel. With the rising power and usage of ARM based mobile devices and Apple's switch to ARM for it's PCs I'd be targeting the ARM version of windows for boot camp on M1 Macs rather than supporting a market that will be dwindling.

Do you really think Microsoft cares about the TINY number of Windows sales to boot camp users? It’s rounding error at best.

Besides boot camp is gone going forward on M series Mac’s. Apple dropped it. Why? Because they know it is hardly used by Mac users anymore.

 

[bobcomer]

I have not run Windows on a Mac via boot camp in 7 years or more. I think I had a Windows VM 5 years ago to run some app, can’t remember what it was now??

I've never used bootcamp. I've always ran Windows in a VM on my Mac's.

There is zero need to run Windows on a Mac in 2021. So much stuff is web based, is also on Mac or has great alternatives on Mac.

LOL! I haven't needed to run a Windows app on a Mac since last night. We all have different jobs, responsibilities, and desires, and a blanket statement like yours just doesn't work. You've never heard me say that there's no way you can go without a Windows VM!

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

While I prefer RISC to CISC, Apple didn't make the M1 move in the right way: they expect that the software industry will follow and port their software, because Apple thinks they still can make the market move at will, like in the Jobs era. That's a big mistake, because iOS is strong, but MacOS isn't anymore: In the field of Architecture and AEC (which is the field I know best), all the users with Macs used Bootcamp or Parallels, as all the applications in the area are Windows only (except AutoCAD, which is used less and less nowadays, and ArchiCAD).

What's going to happen isn't that Revit, SAP2000, or Robot will be ported to ARM. They won't be ported. What will happen is that no Architecture student is going to buy a Mac anymore.

I've seen this move in my Architecture School: Ten years ago, most students had a Mac. Today, all of them have PCs, just because neither Revit nor any other software used at the School runs on MacOS.

Of course there's a second read to this: The main goal of Apple is the iPad. They really want the iPad to be the bestselling "computer" (if you can call that a computer). So, they don't care what software is supported on the Mac, provided that the iPad is cheap and everybody can buy it, so that, a decade from now, all major apps will run on it. That's obviously their strategy. But no, my computer will be a computer, not an iPad.

I do t think Apple cares about the Architecture market. It’s tiny and does not matter to them. They are consumer focused and have been for a while. Their pro market goals are creatives.

Adobe is or has ported Adobe CC and other vendors as well (Affinity etc).

With the performance gains from the M1 on these V1 apps and V1 M series chips chips showing great results already. I can see a future withe the M3 and V2/3 apps from many vendors so out performing a Windows solution that Mac’s become the standard for video/photo pro market. I bet that market is many times bigger than the architecture market.

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

I've never used bootcamp. I've always ran Windows in a VM on my Mac's.


LOL! I haven't needed to run a Windows app on a Mac since last night. We all have different jobs, responsibilities, and desires, and a blanket statement like yours just doesn't work. You've never heard me say that there's no way you can go without a Windows VM!

So if you have to run a Windows app on a Mac so often……why have a Mac? Or why not have a PC as well?

I know LOTS of Mac users. One of them still runs a Windows VM for Qucikbooks. He is fiannly moving to the Mac version because he wants a M1 Mac. All the other Mac users I know do not run Windows on their Mac’s. I bet most don’t know you can/could.

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

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

You run the Windows version of Office on your Mac via Bootcamp?

I am IT my teams manages on prem AD and our Azure/M365 environments. All from Mac’s. The Windows AD tools are a published app from a RDS host so they run in a window for us. We have access to Windows RDS hosts used for management as well. Plus every Windows server on prem is virtulized on ESXi so I can access them all from Safari if I wanted too (FF is my daily driver).

Our Sharepoint is all cloud now so browser, same for Azure and M365 management.