Parallels Desktop

As far as virtualizing Windows on AS (Apple Silicon), the current state of affairs is fine and presumably will improve, as @Derekcurrie pointed out. What is really disappointing looking forward is the very poor support to date for virtualizing macOS (Parallels and Fusion). Once Apple drops making Intel versions of macOS, unless there is a major improvement in macOS VMs (AS) support, if you need to do software testing, are we back to the days of having to keep actual mac hardware around with different macOSs installed? Multiboot on one mac is not really an option because you really need concurrent access to your working environment and the testing environment, for quick testing and feedback.

The current version is 17.1.0. I have it running Windows 11 ARM Insider Preview with no major problems. (Sorry paranoids! It works fine, no crashing or security concerns evident). I'm running old Windows x86 (Intel) software, including games, at decent speeds. Microsoft's x86 emulator is reasonable. I've had no troubles adjusting to Windows 11 changes. Parallels has done a very nice job, highly recommended.

The one reason that keeps me using Boot Camp (I own the latest version of Parallels) is that you'll still have the booted MacOS taking up a lot of RAM. When I boot into Windows X via Boot Camp, only Windows X is using RAM.

as of July 12, 2021, the info on this page is seriously out of date and incomplete. Here's what you need to know. The latest release is 16.5. It runs on both Intel and M1 Macs. It is ONE product, shipped as an Universal app; you don't have to worry about ordering the Intel or M1 version of Parallels separately. On Intel Macs it runs basically unchanged as it has for the past few years. you can install Intel versions of Windows, macOS and Linux. On M1 Macs, you can ONLY install ARM-based operating systems. This includes Windows ARM (which you have to get from Microsoft by signing up with the Windows Insider program. ) There are various ARM based flavors of Linux. At this time, Parallels does NOT support installing a guest version of Big Sur on M1 Macs. So if you have an M1 Mac and wanted to run macOS guest virtual machines, not possible at this time; stick with an Intel Mac. As for Windows on M1, it is not the Windows Intel version everyone is familiar with, it is Windows ARM. It will run ARM based versions of Windows software fine; it can also run Intel Windows apps, but does so in emulation mode. In other words, if you are trying to run an old Windows Intel app, you would be running this in emulation, on Windows ARM, which is running virtualized under Big Sur, on a M1 Mac. The reviews I have read all say that amazingly, because the M1 is so fast and efficient, running Windows Intel apps under Windows ARM emulation, then virtualized, is not that bad, no worse than say running it on a ARM based Surface Pro. My personal opinion (I've been using Parallels, VMWare Fusion since the early 2000's.). If running a Windows app is mission critical for your business, go buy a used, refurbished Intel PC for under $500. And in many cases, if you're a business, you already have old Windows boxes lying around. I have Windows 10 running on 10 year old laptop with 4 GB of RAM just fine, just be sure to replace the old hard drive with an SSD. Then log into the PC remotely from your Mac using any of a dozen Mac based Remote Desktop apps. Microsoft can provide arm based versions of their Windows apps if they want, but IMO, running Microsoft apps is not the main reason Mac users want/need to run Windows ...it's that 10 year old accounting program, or custom built app that your company runs on that needs to be supported. Most current, popular business software (like Office, Adobe, Quickbooks) already comes in Mac and Windows versions which are basically feature identical. No, that's not the problem, it's the old software that's discontinued, no longer supported or upgraded, running on Windows 7 or XP that so many businesses still use. Until Microsoft makes clear what the road map for Windows ARM is, AND until Qualcomm can actually make an ARM chip that can compete with Apple Silicon, I would avoid investing any more $$ into Parallels. The licensing is an all together separate issue; for now you can get Windows ARM for free by signing up as an Insider. If Microsoft and Qualcomm get serious about ARM, you can bet eventually Windows ARM will no longer be free, so when you start adding up Total Cost of Ownership, using an old PC box and spare Windows license you have already lying around, looks very attractive. The fact that Parallels has even come this far supporting Windows ARM is impressive technical, no doubt, but the company had no choice; once Apple discontinues Intel versions of macOS (probably the os that comes after Monterey will be the last Intel release), Parallels would be out of business unless they came up with an answer to Apple Silicon. the question is whether the demand to run Windows and Linux ARM based, on Apple Silicon is strong enough to maintain the business once Intel Macs disappear? VMWare, the company, is in a different position, its business model isn't dependent on selling Fusion, in fact Fusion at best breaks even or makes a modest profit. Parallels is desperate and should be; if there is no sustainable business model for ARM based virtualization of Windows and Linux, the company is done once Apple macOS stops supporting Intel Macs.

purchased v 16. for my macbook Pro 15 inch 2017 with latest mojave OS. unable to install it and get it running. tried all recommended steps (several odd Terminal commands, reinsatallition with recovery mode etc etc- nothing helped. Most annoying the recommended last option: upgrade to Catalina.... this is poor support. btw, no response from support to my query.. They should honestly admit that v 16 does not work with Mojave! Overall comment : expensive and poor! I will cancel the order

v16.1.3 is now out! - - "This update for Parallels Desktop 16 for Mac 16.1.3 (49160) addresses overall stability and performance issues."

So, Parallels is showing off a Technical Preview of the Parallels that can run the ARM version of Windows on Apple Silicon apps. I've tried it, it works, for the most part, still a lot of work to do, but interesting. It's a proof of concept, the bigger issue is, will running the ARM version Windows satisfy people who want to run Windows on a Apple Silicon Mac, because Windows ARM still has it's own issues even on official Windows hardware like the Surface Pro. Lingering application issues, emulation of Intel, problems running older 32-bit Intel apps (under emulation). Even still the, it's actually quite amazing that it can be done, that a 32/64-bit Intel Windows app can run under emulation on a ARM version of Windows built for Qualcomm's ARM chip, running as a Virtual Machine on a Apple Mac with a Apple designed ARM processor

I don’t want to use Windows and its applications - for 27 years I have been loyal to Apple because the mindset of this operating system is the same as mine. What is not the case with Windows...

smart but expensive

Not a bad package but vmware is faster

Ignore negative reviews about Parallels Desktop. I use Parallels Desktop Pro for Mac, and after the recent 16.1.1 update things still run smoothly. Now, it takes much longer for the VM to start and restart, much like a normal hard disk. Nonetheless, stability matters more to me. Furthermore, this latest update improved on the handling of memory. In earlier releases of versions 15 and 16 I noticed heavy memory usage, but that is becoming less of an issue. I do wish Parallels didn't use memory unless it actually needed to use it, then allow macOS to reclaim it, just the way macOS does. Maybe, I do not know the limitations of a virtual machine, but in my mind just because a certain amount of memory is allocated to a virtual machine in the virtual machine settings doesn't mean the virtual machine should use all of it 100% of the time. I think this could use improvement. Yet, even with this issue, Parallels Desktop Pro is extremely stable. For those of us holding on to our older Macs we are grateful to have it. Thanks guys! Wishing you good health and greater success in the future!

To be honest it worked for awhile but the Mac mouse and keyboard drivers became corrupted and I could never download again. I found I could get away without a Windows machine and never followed up. It was a great idea but became superfulous.

I HATE IT

so Parallels 16 (P16) and Fusion 12 (F12) are now released. Let's compare. F12 standard (now called Player) version cost; now free for personal use. P16 standard cost $79, even for students and home use. F12 Pro cost $149 one time, and that includes THREE licenses, cross-platform (licenses good on Fusion for Mac or Workstation for Windows or Linux). P16 Pro cost $99 PER YEAR, one license per computer. In other words, P16 has not changed its pricing structure with the new release. VmWare has significantly lowered TCO with latest release. Apple Silicon (AS) is coming; the expert consensus is that virtualizing (not to be confused with emulating) Windows, which is Intel based, will be basically impossible on AS based Macs. Emulation MAY be possible, but we don't know enough yet about performance, etc, to understand how it would work and how WELL, and if any 3rd party vendor care enough to put in the resources to even overcome the technical hurdles to build an Intel emulation product over AS. Is the market demand enough to warrant it? So, in other words, Vmware recognizes the run for Desktop virtualization is over in the next year or so, and is rewarding its user base by lowering cost to help ease them through a transition, at the same time keeping them up to date and running on the current Intel based Macs for as long as users want or keep their Intel Macs. Parallels has opted to continue to charge (milk) its users by NOT reducing cost of ownership, even knowing that this is an End of Life product scenario for Parallels Desktop as we know it. Understandable, because unlike Vmware, outside of Parallels Desktop Mac, they don't have other products or solutions advanced or established enough to offset the lost of revenue as need for P Desktop declines in the next few years. They have to milk the cow when it is the only cow you have, while they can. VMware has firmly established alternative technologies once Fusion for Desktop is gone (cloud based and application virtualization), they have a firmly established product line(s) and business in Enterprise. They can and will continue to support Workstation for Windows and Linux. Parallels has a steep hill to climb if tries to compete with VMware in the cloud and server based solutions for Enterprise, because it has to first establish a consistent MATURE technology solution on Intel hardware geared towards Enterprise and cloud and server based solutions. If you are personal, home user, F12 makes more sense right now than buying or upgrading to P16, considering that virtualizing Windows on Intel Macs will decline as Intel Macs grow old and are eventually replaced by AS based Macs; in fact if you are already using Fusion 11 and don't mind sticking with Mojave on your Intel Mac for another year or two, there's no reason to upgrade to F12 unless you need one of the new features (Direct X 11?). The money you would put down the drain for a new or continued SUBSCRIPTION to Parallels, OR to upgrade F11 to F12, you could apply towards a decent refurb Windows PC box and run Windows natively. It is ridiculously easy and affordable to buy quality refurb Windows boxes; I don't mean low end either, i7 cpus only 2 or 3 generations back. For most SMBs that are Mac shops but still need Windows application access, that is probably the solution for the future, get an inexpensive used Windows box, stick it in the corner and access on a network with Remote Desktop, Citrix or any of a dozen remote methods. That's my two cents, and I'm not a Parallels hater or Vmware shill; in the last 20 years I've used and recommended both; personally, to co-workers and to clients, to the tune of thousands of dollars in licenses.

so Parallels 16 (P16) and Fusion 12 (F12) are now released. Let's compare. F12 standard (now called Player) version cost; now free for personal use. P16 standard cost $79, even for students and home use. F12 Pro cost $149 one time, and that includes THREE licenses, cross-platform (licenses good on Fusion for Mac or Workstation for Windows or Linux). P16 Pro cost $99 PER YEAR, one license per computer. In other words, P16 has not changed its pricing structure with the new release. VmWare has significantly lowered TCO with latest release. Apple Silicon (AS) is coming; the expert consensus is that virtualizing (not to be confused with emulating) Windows, which is Intel based, will be basically impossible on AS based Macs. Emulation MAY be possible, but we don't know enough yet about performance, etc, to understand how it would work and how WELL, and if any 3rd party vendor care enough to put in the resources to even overcome the technical hurdles to build an Intel emulation product over AS. Is the market demand enough to warrant it? So, in other words, Vmware recognizes the run for Desktop virtualization is over in the next year or so, and is rewarding its user base by lowering cost to help ease them through a transition, at the same time keeping them up to date and running on the current Intel based Macs for as long as users want or keep their Intel Macs. Parallels has opted to continue to charge (milk) its users by reducing cost of ownership, even knowing that this is an End of Life product scenario for Parallels Desktop as we know it. Understandable, because unlike Vmware, outside of Parallels Desktop Mac, they don't have other products or solutions advanced or established enough to offset the lost of revenue as need for P Desktop declines in the next the next few years. They have to milk the cow when it is the only cow you have, while they can. VMware has firmly established alternative technologies once Fusion for Desktop is gone (cloud based and application virtualization), they have a firmly established product line(s) and business in Enterprise. They can and will continue to support Workstation for Windows and Linux. Parallels has a steep hill to climb if tries to compete with VMware in the cloud and server based solutions for Enterprise, because it has to first establish a consistent MATURE technology solution on Intel hardware geared towards Enterprise and cloud and server based solutions. If you are personal, home user, F12 makes more sense right now than buying or upgrading to P16, considering that virtualizing Windows on Intel Macs will decline as Intel Macs grow old and are eventually replaced by AS based Macs; in fact if you are already using Fusion 11 and don't mind sticking with Mojave on your Intel Mac for another year or two, there's no reason to upgrade to F12 unless you need one of the new features (Direct X 11?). The money you would put down the drain for a new or continued SUBSCRIPTION to Parallels, OR to upgrade F11 to F12, you could apply towards a decent refurb Windows PC box and run Windows natively. It is ridiculously easy and affordable to buy quality refurb Windows boxes; I don't mean low end either, i7 cpus only 2 or 3 generations back. For most SMBs that are Mac shops but still need Windows application access, that is probably the solution for the future, get an inexpensive used Windows box, stick it in the corner and access on a network with Remote Desktop, Citrix or any of a dozen remote methods. That's my two cents, and I'm not a Parallels hater or Vmware shill; in the last 20 years I've used and recommended both, personal and to clients, to the tune of thousands of dollars in licenses.

I deleted my previous review because I found a work-around to the vexing only-one-resolution-in-Catalina problem in Parallels 15. The work-around is to copy the Parallels Tools ISO (Applications>Parallels Desktop>Show Package Contents>Resources>Tools>prl-tools-mac.iso). Copy the ISO to the desktop of your Catalina VM. You might not be able to see ANY shared folders or be able to drag and drop (because there are no tools installed, duh). I logged on to my host via the network and copied the ISO to the root of the hard drive in my host, then I could see it inside the Catalina VM. Open the ISO, install Parallels Tools, reboot, and you should now have multiple resolutions available (in addition to all the other functionality that Tools provides). Nowhere that I could find is this mention ANYWHERE on the Parallels support site (though it will be shortly). For this glaring oversight on behalf of Parallels, I rate this version low.

Good when you need to run Win only apps.

It gets extremely slow by the time. On every new release, my version (v11) got slower and slower. Almost not usable anymore. I felt I've been forced to upgrade. I am not sure if they do it on purpose tho.

This is decent

A huge improvement over earlier versions. It's not an app I use a lot - I install other Mac OS's rather than any ghastly Windows nonsense, which I did in the past - but Parallels is much improved and Parallels Toolbox offers genuinely useful tools.