Parallels Desktop 16 revamped to run Windows faster on macOS Big Sur

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 25
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,480member
    docno42 said:
    Heck Adobe has ARM native creative suite already. 
    Says who?
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 25
    tobiantobian Posts: 158member
    temperor said:
    If developers can make Windows run on a Pi4, I’m sure Parallels can do it as well. The question is if x86 app’s on W10 arm on an ARM instruction set are going to be sufficient performant, it’s been shown they run significantly slower. This of course can be compensated by faster Silicon. I’m sure developers of Parallels already have this on their def kit, but that would not be representative for performance and would also brake their NDA.

    I've seen W10 on ARM emulating X86 code and yes, it was terribly slow. But that's one emulator - an MS made emulation within W10 ARM. There are other options as well - X86 emulation in ARM Parallels running X86 Windows, or X86 Parallels adapted to use Rosetta 2 to run X86 Windows. Each way it would perform differently, and I believe the last one would be the best performant.

    elijahg said:
    This is true, though I wonder if the ASi transition will start other vendors looking at ARM more seriously too. It usually takes someone like Apple to take a bold step for the rest of the industry to follow. A switch from x86 is needed, but whether this will be enough I'm not sure. Businesses as usual will only switch if they are dragged kicking and screaming, and then will need a 100% compatible translation layer. 

    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.

    23 years? So you've began on some PowerPC 603, 604 series? Running Windows toy slow in VirtualPC? I'm pretty sure there are some X86 emulation - ARM coded projects on github.. and as there was a plenty of linux stuff comming to MacOS X in it's early days, I believe there will be similar situation this time. There will be some solution to run X86 Windows on Apple Silicon Macs very soon.
    razorpitwatto_cobrafastasleep
     3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 25

    Do Not Buy or Install Parallels 16 for Big Sur Testing


    Big Sur VMs are unusable on Catalina host due to a feature that limits the graphics card emulation to 3Mb

    Official statement from technical support:

    Thank you for contacting Parallels Support.
    This email is in regards to your graphic card usage in Big Sur Virtual machine.
    In order to use maximum resources in Big Sur Virtual machine, Host OS should also be Big Sur due to the recent API implementation.
    We are closing this ticket. Please get back to us if you have any other queries.
    Thank you for choosing Parallels. Have a great day!

    elijahgfastasleep
     1Like 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 24 of 25
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,890member

    elijahg said:
    This is true, though I wonder if the ASi transition will start other vendors looking at ARM more seriously too. It usually takes someone like Apple to take a bold step for the rest of the industry to follow. A switch from x86 is needed, but whether this will be enough I'm not sure. Businesses as usual will only switch if they are dragged kicking and screaming, and then will need a 100% compatible translation layer. 

    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.

    23 years? So you've began on some PowerPC 603, 604 series? Running Windows toy slow in VirtualPC? I'm pretty sure there are some X86 emulation - ARM coded projects on github.. and as there was a plenty of linux stuff comming to MacOS X in it's early days, I believe there will be similar situation this time. There will be some solution to run X86 Windows on Apple Silicon Macs very soon.
    A 25MHz 68030 Performa 475 actually :) Then a Performa 6400, Power Mac G5, Mac Pro, 2012 iMac and 2019 iMac. VPC was painfully slow, even on the G5. There was yes, but those utilities were recompiled to run natively on the x86 Macs, since most of the headers and libraries were already supplied by Apple. Doesn't have a bearing on Windows on ASi emulation speed though. No one knows if ASi will support the ARM version of Windows. And even if it did, there's hardly any apps available for it.
    tobian
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 25
    tobiantobian Posts: 158member
    elijahg said:
    A 25MHz 68030 Performa 475 actually :) Then a Performa 6400, Power Mac G5, Mac Pro, 2012 iMac and 2019 iMac. VPC was painfully slow, even on the G5. There was yes, but those utilities were recompiled to run natively on the x86 Macs, since most of the headers and libraries were already supplied by Apple. Doesn't have a bearing on Windows on ASi emulation speed though. No one knows if ASi will support the ARM version of Windows. And even if it did, there's hardly any apps available for it.
    Nice :smile:  You’ve had a higher model of low cost line that time :) Mine was LC III, an european branded Performa (there was also an LC 475 too). It was 68030, but clocked only 20MHz, and lacked FPU cooprocessor :) ....So you was able to emulate Win 3.1 using 68k SoftPC.. it felt like rendering frame by frame :D
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.