Silicon and Windows virtual machines?

[FortWorthMac]

Ok, please bear with me as this may be a stupid question. But with the move to Apple's new chip, will virtualization software, such as Parallels still be able to run? I know there is something about Intel and Windows. But I don't know enough to know if the new "chip" will preclude VMs from working.

Thanks
David

 

[TestUs]

Parallels Desktop for Mac with Apple M1 chip

Best way to run Windows on Mac - Parallels Product Blog - Run Windows, Linux, and more on your Mac. Helpful tips and tricks, Apple macOS and Mirosoft Windows news

www.parallels.com

However, virtual machines are an exception. It is important to note that currently available versions of Parallels® Desktop for Mac cannot run virtual machines on Mac with Apple M1 chip. Good news: A new version of Parallels Desktop for Mac that can run on Mac with Apple M1 chip is already in active development.

We switched Parallels Desktop to universal binary and optimized its virtualization code; and the version that we are eager to try on these new MacBook Air, Mac mini and MacBook Pro 13″ looks very promising. Parallels is also amazed by the news from Microsoft about adding support of x64 applications in Windows on ARM.

Bolded section seems to hint that Windows on ARM is coming.

 

[Lucifer666]

No

Those programs use the hardware like sort of a Dual-boot, but with virtual drivers. In other words, they are written to use Intel.

They would have to create an entirely new app like Rosetta, but we haven’t heard anything about that. It would be much slower also, so it would depend on the app more. Certain apps might run fine.

But I don‘t know. This is what I’ve gleaned from the whole mess.

 

[FortWorthMac]

Damnit. That's what I was afraid of. Thank for the reply.

 

[Fomalhaut]

Ok, please bear with me as this may be a stupid question. But with the move to Apple's new chip, will virtualization software, such as Parallels still be able to run? I know there is something about Intel and Windows. But I don't know enough to know if the new "chip" will preclude VMs from working.

Thanks
David

Virtualization software will be released (Parallels was demo'd at WWDC), and MacOS includes an internal hypervisor (HyperKit) - but these won't run x86_64 VMs - at least not yet - because that would require emulation (converting from one CPU instruction set to another). The WWDC demo showed a distribution of Linux-for-ARM running.

Unfortunately, Rosetta 2 does not support running virtualization software, so you won't be able to run an Intel-MacOS version of Parallels, VMWare or VirtualBox.

It may be technically possible to run Windows-for-ARM on a virtual machine on Apple Silicon, but Microsoft does not currently support this (they only support Window-on-ARM with a few OEM vendors). Windows-on-ARM can run x86 Windows apps in emulation, but performance is said to be poor currently, plus you would have the double-whammy or running an emulator inside a virtual machine, both taking a hit on the performance.

 

[acastic]

Ok, please bear with me as this may be a stupid question. But with the move to Apple's new chip, will virtualization software, such as Parallels still be able to run? I know there is something about Intel and Windows. But I don't know enough to know if the new "chip" will preclude VMs from working.

Thanks
David

The answer is everyone’s favorite... “maybe”.

see the following:

Parallels Desktop for Mac with Apple M1 chip

Best way to run Windows on Mac - Parallels Product Blog - Run Windows, Linux, and more on your Mac. Helpful tips and tricks, Apple macOS and Mirosoft Windows news

www.parallels.com

Microsoft vague on the future of Windows virtualization on Mac following Apple Silicon transition - 9to5Mac

At WWDC this week, Apple detailed its roadmap to transition the Mac lineup from Intel processors to Apple Silicon chips....

9to5mac.com

 

[ght56]

Presently, no. In the future, you should be able to virtualize on a M1 Mac, but that does NOT confirm if you will specifically be able to virtualize Windows specifically. And, even if you can virtualize Windows, it does not mean you will necessarily be able to virtualize the version of Windows you previously virtualized, or that you can run the same apps. So a lot of questions remain. If you are virtualizing, now is a great time to buy an Intel Mac IMHO.

 

[ww1971]

It can only virtualise arm versions of windows. But Arm versions of windows is only available via OEM. More luck with virtualizaton of arm version of linux though

 

[Rastafabi]

No

Those programs use the hardware like sort of a Dual-boot, but with virtual drivers. In other words, they are written to use Intel.

They would have to create an entirely new app like Rosetta, but we haven’t heard anything about that. It would be much slower also, so it would depend on the app more. Certain apps might run fine.

But I don‘t know. This is what I’ve gleaned from the whole mess.

Currently available iterations of this software and comparable ones are intel only for sure, but this does not mean that there won't be AS versions on the road map (actually they already are). They presumably won't run windows operating systems but other OSs ARM-counterparts.

That said even hardware emulation can be done, though this is a slow thing for sure. However software to accomplish this is already available nonetheless.

 

[FortWorthMac]

Sigh. Wanna upgrade. But still need Windows for Quicken. Quicken for Mac just ain't the same

 

[Rastafabi]

Sigh. Wanna upgrade. But still need Windows for Quicken. […]

Do you?

 

[Takuro]

I have a feeling that running x86 Windows will be possible, but it could take at least a couple years. And even when it is possible, it's going to be for very casual use cases. I am more interested in the SoC's that come out *after* M1, since M1 is really just to get Apple's foot in the door and target the lower-end of the spectrum for cheaper laptops.

If your goal is to run the occasional legacy Windows app out of nostalgia or necessity, it'll be possible, but don't expect to have anything near the raw performance today of running Bootcamp directly on bare hardware. Even if Apple releases some really killer SoC's that rival the likes of the Core i9, so much overhead is going to be involved in the virtualization that it'll be a major performance hit.

If you're a gamer, I'll put it this way: Imagine trying to emulate a Playstation 3, a PowerPC-based system that came out over a decade ago, even on modern and powerful x86 hardware. Videos are out there of people accomplishing it, but the frame rates are still unplayable. Imagine AAA games for Windows today taking 10+ years to run smoothly on Apple Silicon (assuming they never get a native ARM port).

Food for thought. For some Windows-related use cases, an Intel Mac is most definitely a good investment, even right now, and will be for years down the road. Also bear in mind Intel Macs support eGPU's, and even if drivers stop getting made at the Mac side as the latest and greatest graphics cards come out, Windows will work fine with those for years and years. It might be a bit of a niche use case, but still compelling enough to make an Intel Mac a very good investment today.

 

[Rastafabi]

I have a feeling that running x86 Windows will be possible, but it could take at least a couple years. And even when it is possible, it's going to be for very casual use cases. […]

It already is.

 

[Takuro]

It already is.

Based on this, it doesn't seem too practical at the moment.

Would be curious to see how to runs on an M1, but it probably won't be anywhere near the performance of Parallels running on an Intel Mac.

 

[Rastafabi]

It hat been updated to a totally new V2.0.X release after this video has been published with an all new interface and features. That said I have not tested it.

 

[crashnburn]

When are the Parallels and VMWare editions gonna launch/ hit market?

 

[Yebubbleman]

Ok, please bear with me as this may be a stupid question. But with the move to Apple's new chip, will virtualization software, such as Parallels still be able to run? I know there is something about Intel and Windows. But I don't know enough to know if the new "chip" will preclude VMs from working.

Thanks
David

Parallels needs to make an Apple Silicon specific version of Desktop. Similarly, VMware needs to make an Apple Silicon specific version of Fusion. The current Intel versions will not run on Apple Silicon. Similarly, Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion will only be able to create VMs using the same architecture as the Mac they're running on (so, only Intel versions of Desktop and Fusion will be able to run x86 VMs and only Apple Silicon versions of Desktop and Fusion will be able to run ARM VMs).

So, in short, you will not be running the same version of Windows 10 in a VM on your Apple Silicon Mac as you've been running on a VM on your Intel Mac and/or via Boot Camp.

There is an ARM64 version of Windows 10 and it is possible to get that running in a VM, but Microsoft currently only licenses that version of Windows 10 to OEMs. Microsoft needs to modify their licensing and/or work with Apple on a means of licensing Windows 10 for ARM64 to run either on VMs hosted on Apple Silicon Macs or in a native dual-boot fashion (a la Boot Camp on Intel Macs).

 

[crashnburn]

Parallels needs to make an Apple Silicon specific version of Desktop. Similarly, VMware needs to make an Apple Silicon specific version of Fusion. The current Intel versions will not run on Apple Silicon. Similarly, Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion will only be able to create VMs using the same architecture as the Mac they're running on (so, only Intel versions of Desktop and Fusion will be able to run x86 VMs and only Apple Silicon versions of Desktop and Fusion will be able to run ARM VMs).

Wouldnt the point of the M1 VM HVs actually be to offer a VM HV that can do both.. allow another OS on top as well as allow for Roesetta like translation of x86 code to the brilliant hardware that M1 is.
It would make M1 the de facto hardware going forward.. and S Jobs soul will have a laugh at Intel crying over their..

 

[tdar]

Wouldnt the point of the M1 VM HVs actually be to offer a VM HV that can do both.. allow another OS on top as well as allow for Roesetta like translation of x86 code to the brilliant hardware that M1 is.
It would make M1 the de facto hardware going forward.. and S Jobs soul will have a laugh at Intel crying over their..

It is difficult to provide a 386 emulator that has anything close to an acceptable level of performance. Both Parallels and VMWare are aware of this desire from customers. I'd say step at a time. Let them get good VM support for arm images working with the built-in Apple hypervisor. Then they can work towards 386 support.

 

[haralds]

The components for putting the pieces together already exist. As is shown with Crossover, Apple has no objection to developers leveraging their Rosetta2 translator. The problem is that it does not support x86 and under Windows 32 bit apps still dominate.
Another challenge is that the virtualizing software needs to present a complete set of virtualized Intel chipsets - not just the CPU but Northbridge/Southbridge etc. But again that challenge is understood.
Supporting the ARM version of Windows is more straight forward. QEMU already does most of it. The biggest challenge is to provide a high speed mapping of graphics calls and OpenGL to Metal to get acceptable performance.
I would expect betas within a matter of weeks.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Wouldnt the point of the M1 VM HVs actually be to offer a VM HV that can do both.. allow another OS on top as well as allow for Roesetta like translation of x86 code to the brilliant hardware that M1 is.
It would make M1 the de facto hardware going forward.. and S Jobs soul will have a laugh at Intel crying over their..

You don't have hypervisors on x86 that emulate ARM or PowerPC or SPARC or IA-64 or anything else out there. I'm not sure what makes you assume that an ARM hypervisor's main point is to emulate x86 rather than to virtualize ARM. Apple, VMware, and Parallels have all pretty much stated that emulating x86 is not a feature that they're going to be able to offer. That's not to say that some other program won't come out and emulate x86 a la Connectix's Virtual PC. Just that we're not getting that feature with Apple Silicon versions of VMware Fusion, Parallels Desktop, or anything else out there that leverages the Apple Hypervisor.

Rosetta 2 doesn't translate x86 hypervisors. This is why Intel versions of Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion won't run on Apple Silicon Macs.

This is why Intel Macs remain appealing for those wanting to multi-boot or virtualize with other x86 operating systems.

It's also the one shortcoming of M1 Macs.

 

[Nate Spencer]

There already exist using qemu. UTM app that was ported from iOS seems to be the best. Win10 ARM seems to be the best choice. I can't seem to do build updates w/o them being rolled back. It does run win32 apps reasonably well and the x64 emulator prerelease came out yesterday. I have ran Windows 7 and 8.1 on QEMU the performance is terrible to unusable. Virtualization is one thing emulation is another. MS eventually releasing a version of Win10 ARM that is for VMS or even dual boot on the M series is likely the best solution. You can join the insider program w/ MS for free if you want to try it.

 

[crashnburn]

You don't have hypervisors on x86 that emulate ARM or PowerPC or SPARC or IA-64 or anything else out there. I'm not sure what makes you assume that an ARM hypervisor's main point is to emulate x86 rather than to virtualize ARM.

I did not assume anything. I asked, not you.. but I pondered.. it would make sense.. to do so.. WHY?

Virtualization layers always do TRANSLATION - how much and from what type to what type is upto them. Simple in concept, but can get complex in execution depending on the variances of what CHILD systems need to be CARRIED on their shoulders.

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

This is why Intel Macs remain appealing for those wanting to multi-boot or virtualize with other x86 operating systems.

How much money do Intel & all other x86 hardware makers generate?

Would Apple be AVERSE to wanting a CHUNK of that pie?
Would someone not have incentive to LEVERAGE the M1 & its next Gens.. until things at OS level are ported from CISC to RISC?

I am not sure but maybe there were projects or people who had insights into conversion between
big endian <> little endian/ RISC vs CISC .. at what level/ layer.. who knows.. but if the long range incentives exist (which seems to be the case for RISC making a huge come back).. transition pathways for x86 code to execute on Hyper Efficient ARM could exist. In which niches, will have to be checked.

Imagine running Cloud Server Farms on RISC Silicon that is millions of times more power efficient. Operating Cost of that...

 

[haralds]

Parallels Preview is discussed in another thread. it shows the correct path:
- It runs the Windows 10 ARM64 version
- The latest Windows 10 Preview in the Dev Channel supports both x86 an x64 similar to Rosetta2 on macOS.
This is a better solution, since Microsoft can optimize translation for their environment better than an external environment. Like Rosetta2, key elements of the OS like the UX are always running native providing a snappy performance,
Even with both in preview, performance and experience are quite good even in some games.
The big "IF" is will MS release this version to the public? Perhaps Parallels can be an OEM for them. I remember a similar approach with VirtualPC in the days of yore before it was actually bought by MS.

 

[filmak]

Parallels Preview is discussed in another thread. it shows the correct path:
- It runs the Windows 10 ARM64 version
- The latest Windows 10 Preview in the Dev Channel supports both x86 an x64 similar to Rosetta2 on macOS.
This is a better solution, since Microsoft can optimize translation for their environment better than an external environment. Like Rosetta2, key elements of the OS like the UX are always running native providing a snappy performance,
Even with both in preview, performance and experience are quite good even in some games.
The big "IF" is will MS release this version to the public? Perhaps Parallels can be an OEM for them. I remember a similar approach with VirtualPC in the days of yore before it was actually bought by MS.

Yes, it is, but the almost complete lack of drivers for Windows for Arm is a very big problem...