Can Parallels for M1 run Mojave?

[bobcomer]

Again, to clarify, I'm not saying that SOMEONE won't release an emulation based software for x86-64 VMs

That's exactly what i was saying, someone will do it, that's all I want.

I do not, however, believe that VMware or Parallels will be the ones to do it. I've only been talking about Parallels and VMware this whole time.

Then we have a bit of a different argument than we both thought. I'm still not sure VMWare or Parallels wont do it, but that really doesn't matter to me one way or the other, as long as someone does it.

That said, it's foolhardy to think that just because something has always happened that it will continue to happen, especially in an industry where change is constant.

I bought an MBA on that chance, that will actually do a lot of other non work type stuff, on that chance. But now that I have the MBA, I wont even think of buying another without the x86 emulation being workable there. It's really no skin off my back as I have seven machines that do everything I want already and that wont change.

No, you're actually 10000% wrong on this one. Microsoft is a cloud services company now.

Sorry guy, you're wrong on that. They are a cloud company, yes, but they're also a software company and they have aspirations of controlling more than they do. You just don't have any more proof of your position than I do. I know some of the softies and how they work -- thinking they're homogeneous

The only reason why Windows 10 for ARM64 isn't a viable product is that Microsoft CAN'T force developers and users off of x86-64 systems the way that Apple is currently trying to. It would be stupid of them to even try. So, they need to try to convince users and developers that ARM64 is just as good. But there's no underlying incentive for anyone to make the move on either side. That's why innovation here has been stalled. Not because Microsoft doesn't care. Because they can't and won't hold the gun to everyone's head like Apple is famous for doing and CURRENTLY IS doing.

Wow. They aren't going to throw away how much money they make from the x86 segment, that would be idiotic! They aren't Apple, lots of people make hardware that their software runs on. Apple doesn't try to be the market dominant leader, and Microsoft has been the market dominant leader for a long time and that's not changing anytime soon.

But that still doesn't mean the x86 segment is blocking WOA from being a decent product. Microsoft has the manpower to do it if they wanted to. They're just in the experiment phase to figure out if it's worth it.

Windows 10 for ARM64 will be viable and it would be actually stupid on Microsoft's part to not help it find its way to an Apple Silicon Mac, even if only for a VM.

We just don't know on this I'm afraid. It's going much too slowly for a Microsoft to be serious about it to me, but who knows, that could change in a hour -- or not change at all.

I have checked them out. The good ones are pricey enough to effectively be comparable to an actual PC. The ones that suck REALLY suck and are not even worth it even if they are nowhere near the price of a full PC. This is why people don't use them that much.

What I'm talking about is less than $200 -- about the same as a license for VMWare Workstation. Remember I'm not talking like it should be as good as a real PC -- it's just for the odd jobs that I can't do in MacOS. People don't use them much now because they're selling them as full PC's when they obviously aren't. Anyway, it's just a thought, nothing more.

Worst case scenario, x86 virtualization won't suck on a PC. It'll just suck if what you want to do is virtualize x86-64 releases of macOS. But yeah, certainly if you're looking for a Mac that will virtualize x86-64 Mac, Windows, and Linux operating systems, a 2020 27" iMac is probably going to be as good as it gets short of going with a Mac Pro.

For my MBA, all I would really need is Windows, and it would just be for traveling. I have other, much more capable machines of running other OS's in a VM or bare metal at home and at work.

It will become less and less relevant as time goes on, if current computing trends are to be given weight. Though, certainly it will be relevant for 6-10 years easily. Get an Intel Mac though. Any Intel Mac you buy today has at least that long left in it in terms of support. Otherwise, there are tons of great PCs out there that will be more than enough to handle your x86 virtualization needs. And again, I say this as someone who is in the same boat as you in terms of needing x86 support specifically.

I already have an Intel Mac too, bought last year. I also have more than enough Windows x86 machines, both laptop and desktop. But like I said somewhere else. It's important to me to be able to do anything I need to do, no matter what machine I'm using at the time, and I can do that with all my Intel/Windows machines, I can do it on x86/64 linux's, and I can do it with my Intel Mac Mini. If the M1 never satisfies what I want, oh well, I've given up OS's before and will again.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Then we have a bit of a different argument than we both thought. I'm still not sure VMWare or Parallels wont do it, but that really doesn't matter to me one way or the other, as long as someone does it.

They won't do it. There's not enough money to be made doing it and the performance hits will negate the benefits. Plus emulation is not in their business models the way that virtualization is.

Sorry guy, you're wrong on that. They are a cloud company, yes, but they're also a software company and they have aspirations of controlling more than they do. You just don't have any more proof of your position than I do. I know some of the softies and how they work -- thinking they're homogeneous

You clearly don't know how Microsoft works then. I could point you in the direction of TONS of Microsoft Ignite videos since Satya Nadella took the reins and it shows that Microsoft has zero interest in doing to Windows what Apple has done with macOS. Microsoft is not a hardware company first and foremost. Apple is. It's really just that simple.

Wow. They aren't going to throw away how much money they make from the x86 segment, that would be idiotic! They aren't Apple, lots of people make hardware that their software runs on. Apple doesn't try to be the market dominant leader, and Microsoft has been the market dominant leader for a long time and that's not changing anytime soon.

But that still doesn't mean the x86 segment is blocking WOA from being a decent product. Microsoft has the manpower to do it if they wanted to. They're just in the experiment phase to figure out if it's worth it.

You didn't read what I said. I said that Microsoft is not providing developers any incentive to develop their Windows apps for ARM64. This, in turn, doesn't provide users with any incentive to buy ARM64 based Windows 10 machines. This, in turn, further de-incentivizes developers from developing their apps for ARM64. And the cycle continues ad-infinitum. They are not in an experimental phase; it's a very long term play. The best ARM64 SoC that they've had to slap that OS onto is the SQ2, which is still not that impressive. The M1 runs rings around it. With ARMv9 set to catch the rest of the ARM world up to Apple's level of ARM processor performance, this may very well change.

But the notion that this is an experiment on Microsoft's part is laughable and shows a bit of disconnect on your part from what is actually going on in the tech industry.

We just don't know on this I'm afraid. It's going much too slowly for a Microsoft to be serious about it to me, but who knows, that could change in a hour -- or not change at all.

Microsoft doesn't have its userbase and developer base by the balls in the way that Apple does. Quite the opposite, in fact. To say that Microsoft is moving slowly on this assumes that Microsoft and Apple have the same business model and that Microsoft is trying to do what Apple is doing. The two couldn't have more different business models, especially these days. Again, given the SoCs that Microsoft has had to work with coupled with the fact that they CAN'T FORCE developers or users off of x86-64 and onto ARM64, IT WILL HAVE TO GO SLOW.

What I'm talking about is less than $200 -- about the same as a license for VMWare Workstation. Remember I'm not talking like it should be as good as a real PC -- it's just for the odd jobs that I can't do in MacOS. People don't use them much now because they're selling them as full PC's when they obviously aren't. Anyway, it's just a thought, nothing more.

I have never seen a device like what you're talking about be less than $200 and not a total piece of crap. Then again, I'm not talking about what will serve YOUR specific needs. This discussion isn't all about you.

For my MBA, all I would really need is Windows, and it would just be for traveling. I have other, much more capable machines of running other OS's in a VM or bare metal at home and at work.

I already have an Intel Mac too, bought last year. I also have more than enough Windows x86 machines, both laptop and desktop. But like I said somewhere else. It's important to me to be able to do anything I need to do, no matter what machine I'm using at the time, and I can do that with all my Intel/Windows machines, I can do it on x86/64 linux's, and I can do it with my Intel Mac Mini. If the M1 never satisfies what I want, oh well, I've given up OS's before and will again.

If you have multiple PCs and even Intel Macs that do what you need to do x86 wise, then why does it matter whether the M1 Macs don't do virtualization. I completely get and empathize with wanting a bunch of devices that can all do the same degree of anything, but it's REALLY no sweat off your back if Apple ditches x86 virtualization support when you have plenty of other devices that will support it. x86 Virtualization is only ONE of the reasons why the end of x86 Macs mark a turning point with my Mac platform membership, but it's not like I don't have other Intel Macs as well as PCs to handle everything Apple Silicon Macs won't.

 

[bobcomer]

They won't do it. There's not enough money to be made doing it and the performance hits will negate the benefits. Plus emulation is not in their business models the way that virtualization is.

I'm afraid that's only your opinion. (Unless you work for both companies!)

You clearly don't know how Microsoft works then.

That is also your opinion. I have worked closely with them, so I think I'll trust my opinion more than yours. Ignite videos are marketing fluff.

I think we're pretty much done.

Edit: Sorry, I'm just a bit aggravated.

 

[bobcomer]

If you have multiple PCs and even Intel Macs that do what you need to do x86 wise, then why does it matter whether the M1 Macs don't do virtualization. I completely get and empathize with wanting a bunch of devices that can all do the same degree of anything, but it's REALLY no sweat off your back if Apple ditches x86 virtualization support when you have plenty of other devices that will support it. x86 Virtualization is only ONE of the reasons why the end of x86 Macs mark a turning point with my Mac platform membership, but it's not like I don't have other Intel Macs as well as PCs to handle everything Apple Silicon Macs won't.

Like I said, it's a personal rule. If it doesn't do everything I need to do it's not a machine I can't trust it to be the only machine working wherever I'm at.. You might think it's silly, but I'm an IT Manager and I'm on call 24x7x365.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I'm afraid that's only your opinion. (Unless you work for both companies!)

No, it's an educated guess based on the companies at play here. You can't tell me your guess is more educated when it clearly sidesteps the many realities of virtualization on the Apple Silicon Mac hardware platform and Apple's stated support.

That is also your opinion. I have worked closely with them, so I think I'll trust my opinion more than yours. Ignite videos are marketing fluff.

Marketing is geared toward encouraging business. Marketing is also usually emphasized based on where a company hopes to earn new business. Being in IT, you should absolutely know this already. You can't sit here and tell me with anything other than "I'm an IT manager that has worked closely with Microsoft" that their emphasis (not just in marketing, but also IT certification and training) hasn't been Microsoft 365 and Azure.

I think we're pretty much done.

Edit: Sorry, I'm just a bit aggravated.

People don't like being told that they're wrong when they have nothing to defend it with other than "my experience is better than yours". I get it.

Like I said, it's a personal rule. If it doesn't do everything I need to do it's not a machine I can't trust it to be the only machine working wherever I'm at.. You might think it's silly, but I'm an IT Manager and I'm on call 24x7x365.

Having worked as a 24x7x365 on-call IT Manager, I'm not going to tell you that your personal preference is dumb. Just that particular use case doesn't require that every single device you own can do all that you need to do. Albeit, most IT managers are fine with VNC and RDP clients which you can comfortably run on iPads, so this sounds more like a personal preference rather than an actual need. Again, I won't knock your personal preferences, but I will knock you claiming that it's a need when there are plenty of us out there doing IT for a living, on call at all hours of all days not needing every single client device to be able to provide its own virtualization functionality for x86.

 

[bobcomer]

Again, I won't knock your personal preferences, but I will knock you claiming that it's a need when there are plenty of us out there doing IT for a living, on call at all hours of all days not needing every single client device to be able to provide its own virtualization functionality for x86.

You don't know everything.

 

[Yebubbleman]

You don't know everything.

You're right. I don't. But I clearly know more about a lot of this stuff than you do.

 

[bobcomer]

You're right. I don't. But I clearly know more about a lot of this stuff than you do.

You don't know enough to even come close to saying that, but whatever, like I said and should have kept to, we're done.

 

[Yebubbleman]

You don't know enough to even come close to saying that, but whatever, like I said and should have kept to, we're done.

And so the pissing contest continues!

Again, I'm judging what you know by what you've said (sans personal tastes and preferences) and what you've said shows that either you know a lot and it's WAY outdated or you don't know as much as you think you do. Then again, most IT Pros nearing retirement typically fall in the former category. All that to say that, from one IT Pro to another, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt there.

 

[bobcomer]

Parallels just announced Parallels 16.5 for ARM Mac's. (released version)

No announcement of a deal with Microsoft to sell or distribute WOA. So we're still stuck with the preview and I'll probably not buy it for now..

Parallels 16.5 with native Apple Silicon support now available, up 30% faster VM performance than Intel - 9to5Mac

M1 Mac users now have a new way to virtualize Windows on their machines. Parallels has officially released Parallels Desktop...

9to5mac.com

 

[jdb8167]

Parallels just announced Parallels 16.5 for ARM Mac's. (released version)

No announcement of a deal with Microsoft to sell or distribute WOA. So we're still stuck with the preview and I'll probably not buy it for now..

Parallels 16.5 with native Apple Silicon support now available, up 30% faster VM performance than Intel - 9to5Mac

M1 Mac users now have a new way to virtualize Windows on their machines. Parallels has officially released Parallels Desktop...

9to5mac.com

If you need to run unsupported anyway, why spend the money when you can use something like UTM.

 

[bobcomer]

If you need to run unsupported anyway, why spend the money when you can use something like UTM.

I hope there's eventually a way to get a real license for WOA, as an IT guy that kind of bothers me if I were to actually use it for work. I'll probably end up buying the ARM parallels eventually, at least if I keep my M1, just not now...

 

[jdb8167]

I hope there's eventually a way to get a real license for WOA, as an IT guy that kind of bothers me if I were to actually use it for work. I'll probably end up buying the ARM parallels eventually, at least if I keep my M1, just not now...

I'm happy using UTM for now but I don't use Windows so I'm just running Ubuntu.

 

[bobcomer]

I've been a long time customer, I even had their Windows version a long time ago.

 

[haralds]

If you need to run unsupported anyway, why spend the money when you can use something like UTM.

Integration, reliability, and performance are higher on Parallels. Their video driver integration with Metal is not too shabby. There are also host of other features such as snapshots that are meaningful. I have played with UTM and Qemu directly. Fun but not for production work.
I actually have GoG and Steam installed on Parallels and am running games not available on macOS 64bit. It will not compete with PC games expecting high end GPUs but does respectable otherwise.