If it can communicate with a device in a local, closed lan, and is able to access my usb-serial RS232 adapter, then why not. I need Windows only to program certain industry specific devices with their programming tools.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Emulation, virtualization, bootcamp. No hopes?
- Thread starter sosumilee
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I built an i7-10700 system this past month and raw CPU horsepower is comparable to a Mac Pro. The thing runs very cool and very quiet. I run my heavy CPU tasks on it and VNC into a 2015 MacBook Pro 15 to run my macOS software. My alternative was to buy a Mac Pro. My previous desktop was a 2008 Dell XPS Studio with 48 GB of RAM and it is quite a good machine, still. It just runs a lot hotter than I'd like.
If you need multiple operating systems, just build a home cloud that your main system can screen share with.
If you need multiple operating systems, just build a home cloud that your main system can screen share with.
I did this about 4 years ago. it only made sense. im using too many platforms for dev. linux , windows. it made more sense to buy a smaller lighter mac and spend the 1000ish dollars for a decked out dual cpu server to manage the virtualization stuff. costs about 125$ year in power to run. plenty of power.
I bought Parallels to run a program but didn't realize it was subscription. When it came up to renew, I was surprised. And went out and found a macOS replacement for the Windows program and dropped Parallels. It took me quite a bit of time to learn the new program but I'm using it now. Also fortunate because I moved back to Windows and it runs on both Windows and macOS.
It appears that someone at Parallels may have gotten a little too far out over their ski tips. After receiving that message from them last night, the documentation still claims that it is ready for Big Sur. However, the system requirements list only Intel processors with no reference to Apple Silicon. Even the Big Sur-compatibility claim now has an asterisk. It says that Parallels may have to be updated when Big Sur is released.
So, it appears that Apple Silicon-compatibility for now is an aspiration. On the upside, Parallels Desktop 16.1.0 for Mac works perfectly on my 2015 Mac Book Pro.
@MisterMe now that is funny! Only a skier would enjoy this. Where do I send the royalty checks when I use this remark lol! Thanks for the humor!
Big Sur compatibility does not necessarily infer Apple Silicon compatibility and definitely does not infer Apple Silicon native operation. VMware Fusion 12 is also Big Sur compatible but also only Intel compatible, for instance, and will not work on Apple Silicon.
Nothing is inferred. The communication was explicit about Apple Silicon compatibility. We are reminded on Parallel's blog that an Apple Silicon version of Parallel Desktop was demonstrated at WWDC. It is just that the communication sent out last night was an example of their getting ahead of themselves. The communication was quickly withdrawn. Presumably, they will have their acts together by the time the first ASi-based commercial Mac is released.
Because it’s already being done.
New app to let you run Windows 10 on your iPhone
Wish you could do more with your iPhone than just run Apple’s app store apps? A group of independent developers is working to sort you out. UTM is a new app that uses QEMU (virtualization software) to run the full version of Windows 10 from Microsoft’s operating system image. iOS devices lack...
www.windowslatest.com
Real men/women use real serial. USB cannot be real time? A pentium 4/M (I guess Athlon XP too?) box would have the ports.
https://github.com/ish-app/ish i686 emulation up and running today (iOS) it’s been out for awhile but just recently got into App Store.
plus a whole load of Windows options in cloud service providers such as AWS & Microsoft Azure (although Shadow is cheaper if you want to run it for many hours!)
Mostly cost, maybe performance (depending on your network connection). For example, AWS is surprisingly expensive if you want to get a Windows EC2 instance with a GPU, or use Amazon Workspace.
An 8 vCPU (i.e. 4 full cores) / 15GB / with 4GB GPU Windows Workspace costs $22/month PLUS $1.75 per hour, or a whopping $735 per month 24x7 (https://aws.amazon.com/workspaces/pricing/)
ShadowTech is a lot cheaper, but I don't know whether this has the same service levels as AWS.
A more portable solution that actually exists are micro PCs like the Intel NUC. Just run them headless and remote-desktop into them. I have one attached to my telescope to allow me to control it remotely.
Thanks for the pricing info.
I run multi-monitor as well and that might cost extra. It's also one more thing that can go wrong.
If you can build your own PCs, you have lots of options.
If you need to run x86 software just buy a 2020 27" iMac or a Mac Pro. Should be good for the next seven years or so. By then, Linux on ARM may have taken over the cloud and maybe even Windows on ARM will be a thing.
Most use Parallels because they only need to run Linux or Windows.
It would be far cheaper to just buy a Windows box, new or used, or just do your own build. This is what I did this past month (a new build). I think that many of us could look at alternate software down the road so that we don't have to a local home cloud to get our work done.
Have you looked at the pricing of cloud-hosted desktops? It ain't cheap. It makes a lot of sense for business customers already going all-in on VDI, but for those of us who are either home users or small business users, it's not practical at this point in time.
You were right about it being Big Sur compatible. However, you're wrong about universal binary code. Furthermore, given how much is different under the hood, you're likely not going to see a universal binary distribution for Parallels Desktop. If anything, both the Mac App Store and Parallels own site and CDN will likely just automatically detect which architecture you're on and just give you the right download. But there's too much that will be different for it to be on a Universal Binary.
I tried to make this clear, but I will be endeavor to be more explicit. On October 22, I received a communication from Parallels in which it announce the availability of Parallels Desktop 16 for Mac 16.0.1. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the communication announced that the Parallels Desktop update is Big Sur-compatible and that it is Apple Silicon-compatible.
Others quickly chimed in to say that they found no indication that PD 16.0.1 is Apple Silicon-compatible. No such references exist on the Parallels website. I went to the website and found the same thing--no reference at all to Apple Silicon on the website. Digging deeper, I found references on the Parallels blog to Big Sur-compatibility, but sporting an asterisk indicating that PD 16.0.1 may have to be updated when Big Sur is released. As a result, I posted that someone at Parallels had gotten over their ski tips in releasing the communication that I received.
I said all this before your post. Therefore, your statement "However, you're wrong about universal binary code." Because I claimed to be reporting what I had read in a communication from Parallels, you have concluded that I am a liar. You have gone on to explain why I am a liar. You have made it unimpeachably clear that a Universal Binary version of Parallels Desktop is impossible.
I know that you would not accuse me of lying if there were any possibility that I was telling the truth. From this, we may inter an inviolate truth: No company would ever prematurely announce a product or a product's features as I claimed.
Thank you for educating me and the members of MacRumors.
they had windows on the go a few years back (windows on usb) and somehow Microsoft discontinued with it even windows on the go for intel won’t work with Mac on arm because it will only accept arm version which can only be bought with a new computer
vmare and other virtual emutation software won’t accept intel version of Linux or windows on apple silicon chips. The software must be arm based.
I never called you a liar. You should maybe not be so defensive. Also, you can edit your initial post so that this mistake isn't made by others.
In the PowerPC era, you could run Intel-based Windows software via emulation. They simply emulate the x86 processor in software. It’s not fast, but it’s not much different than what Apple is doing with Rosetta. If there is a market for it, I could see VMware creating such a product.
Virtual PC was very different from what Rosetta is doing. Virtual PC emulated an entire PC, not just the processor.