Parallels Desktop 16 revamped to run Windows faster on macOS Big Sur
The developer says 25 person-years of work was needed to bring Parallels to Big Sur, but won't comment on whether it will support Windows on Apple Silicon.

Parallels Desktop 16 promises to run Windows 10 faster on macOS Big Sur
Parallels is the virtualization app that lets users run alternative operating systems alongside Apple's macOS, and in practice, that typically means Windows. Now as Apple confirms that Boot Camp will not continue under Apple Silicon, the question has been whether Parallels will be how Windows users can continue to use Macs.
During a video briefing with AppleInsider, the developers acknowledged the question, but refused to specifically comment yet. They instead pointed out that Apple had demonstrated the use of their Parallels product during the unveiling of Apple Silicon and macOS Big Sur.
That demonstration showed Parallels running Linux on macOS Big Sur on an Apple Silicon machine. It didn't show Windows, but the Parallels developers have now revealed they've put unprecedented effort into working on Apple Silicon.
The company says making Parallels work with macOS Big Sur required the equivalent of 25 person-years of effort. While Apple Silicon may be one unstated reason for that workload, it was Apple's reworking of core features that required adaptation.
Parallels gave the single example of kernel extensions, a way that to now has given virtualization software improved performance. These third-party "kexts" are no longer supported in Big Sur at all, and Parallels said that it was adapting to Apple's own kexts that required all the effort.
For users, what this first means is that Parallels Desktop 16 for Mac is ready for macOS Big Sur. Then the benefits of the new version and the new macOS mean that Parallels estimates it is able to run more Windows apps.
Certain Windows apps would previously fail because they required hardware that Parallels wasn't able to mimic. Many of these will now work, with Parallels saying its new version can run over 200,000 Windows apps.
Parallels Desktop 16 for Mac also claims to run those apps faster than before, with Windows launching twice as fast, and resuming or shutting down up to 20% quicker. It also improves on the previously significant issue that virtual Windows could request extra disk space, but not then return it when shut down.
Parallels Desktop 16 is being sold in three different editions, starting with a standard version, which is a one-time $99.99 purchase. Pro and Business Editions are available on subscription, both for $99.99 per year. Upgrading pricing is also available.

Parallels Desktop 16 promises to run Windows 10 faster on macOS Big Sur
Parallels is the virtualization app that lets users run alternative operating systems alongside Apple's macOS, and in practice, that typically means Windows. Now as Apple confirms that Boot Camp will not continue under Apple Silicon, the question has been whether Parallels will be how Windows users can continue to use Macs.
During a video briefing with AppleInsider, the developers acknowledged the question, but refused to specifically comment yet. They instead pointed out that Apple had demonstrated the use of their Parallels product during the unveiling of Apple Silicon and macOS Big Sur.
That demonstration showed Parallels running Linux on macOS Big Sur on an Apple Silicon machine. It didn't show Windows, but the Parallels developers have now revealed they've put unprecedented effort into working on Apple Silicon.
The company says making Parallels work with macOS Big Sur required the equivalent of 25 person-years of effort. While Apple Silicon may be one unstated reason for that workload, it was Apple's reworking of core features that required adaptation.
Parallels gave the single example of kernel extensions, a way that to now has given virtualization software improved performance. These third-party "kexts" are no longer supported in Big Sur at all, and Parallels said that it was adapting to Apple's own kexts that required all the effort.
For users, what this first means is that Parallels Desktop 16 for Mac is ready for macOS Big Sur. Then the benefits of the new version and the new macOS mean that Parallels estimates it is able to run more Windows apps.
Certain Windows apps would previously fail because they required hardware that Parallels wasn't able to mimic. Many of these will now work, with Parallels saying its new version can run over 200,000 Windows apps.
Parallels Desktop 16 for Mac also claims to run those apps faster than before, with Windows launching twice as fast, and resuming or shutting down up to 20% quicker. It also improves on the previously significant issue that virtual Windows could request extra disk space, but not then return it when shut down.
Parallels Desktop 16 is being sold in three different editions, starting with a standard version, which is a one-time $99.99 purchase. Pro and Business Editions are available on subscription, both for $99.99 per year. Upgrading pricing is also available.
Comments
Would love to know what one or two of those apps are. I had to run SolidWorks 2020 on a 2010 Mac mini yesterday for some testing. While it was painfully slow, it worked.
My comprehension is a little off. If you are running an older version of Mac OS will you notice these advancements as well? I skipped Catalina, I did have it on one test machine for support purposes. I may be a little more open to Big Sur.
That said, I need x86 Windows. Unless there's a seismic shift in the industry toward ARM, I will unfortunately not be getting another Mac - after being an Apple aficionado for 23 years.
Buy a PC and run it headless using Remote Desktop.
It didn't even take 2 years. In government, no less. it was mind boggling. Never in my wildest dreams would I have expected Blackberry to fall - let alone to Apple! In the commercial space? Maybe. But I never thought I would see wide adoption of any Apple products in Government. And now I see Mac's penetrating in general use. It's pretty unreal.
If there is a compelling enough reason, people will chuck the old and embrace the new. The key is the value proposition has to be there. The iPhone was night and day to Blackberry and Windows Mobile. Will Apple Silicon present as stark a contrast? Only time will tell but Apple isn't stupid. If they didn't think they had a significant story to tell even up to the Mac Pro level they wouldn't have committed to moving everything in two years fully to their own system on chip designs.
And I think that's a point that keeps getting glossed over by many. Apple Silicon isn't just a drop in CPU replacement. A lot of functionality that is relegated to separate chips on a motherboard are instead baked into the same system on chip silicon that has the CPU cores. The GPU cores are on the same silicon. What if you had shared system/video RAM with zero performance penalty? Works great for the iPhone/iPad Pro. I think people are seriously underestimating the gains in latency alone that the system on chip approach brings.
I can hear you ask - if it's such a no brainer then why doesn't everyone else do it? Complexity. Intel couldn't possibly hope to appease everyone - hence we have the current least common denominator modular designs with the CPU cores on a chip and everything else off-boarded. It's why Apple decided to acquire PA Semi and go their own way. They couldn't get Intel to innovate in the directions they wanted; not that I entirely blame Intel either. It's not their model.
Still not convinced such integration can be game changing? AMD has re-integrated the memory controller on chip and it was a significant contributor to their success with Athalon - that's just one of MANY significant departures Apple will no doubt unveil with their chips because we can see what they already are doing for the iPhone and iPad. And those designs weren't aimed at the desktop. Who knows where they will go without the steep battery/power/thermal envelope constraints of 100% mobile devices.
Heck they can add specific instructions to help Parallels emulate x86. Wouldn't that be wild if Windows ran faster on Apple Silicon than equivalently priced Intel PCs? I don't think it's a solid bet that x86 emulation will suck because emulating one CPU on another has always sucked before. No one like Apple has had full control of the CPU architecture before - every other CPU used in mass market computers was a least common denominator part shared among many different vendors.
Not this time - the least common denominator constraints are out the window (ha!). This is a new era in computing; I think it could be as significant as the mainframe -> mini computer and mini -> microcomputer revolutions.
Why do you not think Parallels won't run x86 Windows? And as I posted previously, I wouldn't assume such emulation would automatically be slower either.
Heck Adobe has ARM native creative suite already. That's a slight change from the OSX/Carbon fiasco last time and I'm sure a good chunk of that was the smoother transition path this time. Carbon required some serious rewriting.
I use Windows for engineering software (CAD, FEM.. etc) and will most likely going to end up buying cheap PC + Remote Desktop for my Windows needs..