The descriptor '3D' above highly indicates that you really didn't read what I wrote. That really isn't about 'arm' vs 'x86' .
I *tried* to read it, I really did. But, consistently, I find that much of your prose style is confusing. Thus I have a very hard time following it. I'm used to reading highly technical papers. So it's not about the content, it's about how you communicate it.
[I did see you mentioned "Excel calculations that result in a 2D chart/graph ", but there's nothing in that statement that precludes Solidworks 3D.]
And I practice what I preach. I always try to be
considerate to the reader, taking the time to make sure what I write is as understandable as possible. I'm sure you can find a few cases where I've failed at that but, overwhelmingly, if anyone looks at my post history (i.e., if they don't cherry-pick), they will see that I do make such an effort, in spite of the extra editing work that represents.
Here are a couple of recent examples from my posts:
Your prose style indicates either you can't write clearly about technical topics in English (perhaps you lack fluency, which I understand), or can, but choose not to.
Either way, given how you write, you should not begrudge those who don't make it a project to try to decipher what you posted. In summary, it's not that I didn't read what you wrote, it's that what you wrote didn't make a readily understandable connection to Solidworks 3D.
P.S. on your problem Redit thread ....
Third entry
" ...
My Solidworks is working buttery smooth....
Yes, I saw that post, but offering just that one quote clearly misrepresents the overall performance experience people are reporting on that thread. I'm disappointed that you would engage in such dishonest cherry-picking. It indicates you don't want to have a serious discussion, but just want to play games. Plus "smooth" doesn't necessarily mean "no loss of performance", as suggested by the first quote, which was my point:
PERFORMANCE
"Thanks for the instructions. This has allowed my work M1 Ultra to run Solidworks 2022 more smoothly (
bearable) on Parallels 17 - Windows 11."
"The software work but with many problems, It works but it is
super slow."
"The performance of the assemblies and drawings I made so far is
not perfect but fair enough considering that it's under and VM and a x64 to ARM emulation."
"For
very simple modelling and small part assembly it
works fine. When it comes to
anything larger it’s
very slow and frustrating." [But poster notes this may be due to only allocating 4 GB RAM to the VM.]
EXAMPLES OF TECHNICAL ISSUES
[It seems the take-home message is that you can get most (but not necessarily all) of the functions working and that, in any case, it can be a headache to do so (compared to installing it directly on Windows), which is what I suggested previously.]
"I've managed to go so far as installing SolidWorks successfully, though installing eDrawings and everything after it causes problems."
"Hey so did you get to enable real view graphics. I have the 64 go MacBook Pro max and I’ve been trying to get it to work but no luck. Can you help me?"
"Runs smoothly, no real issues. However, after a couple of months of daily use on the M1 mac, I honestly can’t recommend getting one unless you absolutely need a mac for one major reason. I love this computer for 95% of what I do, but honestly
the software hurdles you have to jump because of the M1 chip are a huge pain in the ass sometimes. Even running a VM, a lot of applications either don’t work at all or take a LOT of messing with to get them to run, and even then you can only use as much of your computers power as you can allocate to the vm. Bottom line: the computer and hardware themselves are fantastic and I love them, however, the software just hasn’t caught up in terms of supporting the hardware natively."
