ParallelsU519
Bit poster
Is it possible to install Big Sur at the moment? When trying to install it using an installer app downloaded from the App Store Parallels says that it needs an ISO or a VHDX image instead.
Big Sur installation
- Thread starter ParallelsU519
- Start date
Best answer
Thanks for this post very helpful for me ! I'm now able to run Windows 10 on my MacBook Pro Silicon BigSur 11.2.2 but :
- Resolution is limited to 1024x768
- Impossible to enable network (tried all methods)
Did you encountered similars problems ?
ConnectixSoldOut
Member
Big Sur can't be installed at all, so why the topic?
ConnectixSoldOut
Member
I'm sure they'll add support if they can.. but a bit of an uphill battle here right. Pre-big Sur are x86.. so that's a problem. Also the boot process is entirely different on the Arm Macs.. I suspect they won't be able to virtualize Arm macOS.
But, I'm not them.
I just ran into this myself today trying to create a Big Sur VM on my M1 Mac. I can't believe that is will not be resolved soon. At some point MacOS VMs running on Apple silicon will be needed for CI/CD pipelines. Not to mention that security researchers definitely need this ability. It would have been nice for this incompatibility to be stated on their Technical Preview page though as it would have saved me some time this afternoon.
ConnectixSoldOut
Member
Can't blame Parallels for Apple's security choices on the ARM side of things. The boot process is completely different vs the Intel side. Thank the T2 for that.
I (personally) don't see how they ever get the Arm version booting in a VM.. "maybe" the Intel version, but the performance hit is probably going to be decent. I suspect Intel gets one more major release past 11.x.. but that's it.
I (personally) don't see how they ever get the Arm version booting in a VM.. "maybe" the Intel version, but the performance hit is probably going to be decent. I suspect Intel gets one more major release past 11.x.. but that's it.
I'm not blaming Parallels for not supporting it. I am blaming them for not stating that they are not supporting it though. It could easily be listed as a know issue, but they make no mention of it.
At some point it will have to work. Virtualization is just too big a feature requirement for DevOps and security research. It will obviously require Apple to help facilitate it for it to work properly. I can see that with only 3 M1 models available, it was not high on Apple's priority list a the moment. Perhaps they will implement their own solution so you will not need a 3rd party for MacOS VMs, only Windows and Linux. I'm thinking this might be what ends up happening.
I disagree with your assessment on Intel support on MacOS. I am sure Apple will continue major release support for at least 3 years after they officially stop selling Intel machines. That is the standard life cycle of a machine due to depreciation. They might even have service contracts with government bodies that require a longer support period though that would force them to extend the support. I also doubt that they want to leave the people who bought $50k Mac Pros no new OS versions 2 years after they purchased them. I would be willing to bet that Intel Macs will see at least 5 years of new MacOS support after the last Intel mac is sold.
At some point it will have to work. Virtualization is just too big a feature requirement for DevOps and security research. It will obviously require Apple to help facilitate it for it to work properly. I can see that with only 3 M1 models available, it was not high on Apple's priority list a the moment. Perhaps they will implement their own solution so you will not need a 3rd party for MacOS VMs, only Windows and Linux. I'm thinking this might be what ends up happening.
I disagree with your assessment on Intel support on MacOS. I am sure Apple will continue major release support for at least 3 years after they officially stop selling Intel machines. That is the standard life cycle of a machine due to depreciation. They might even have service contracts with government bodies that require a longer support period though that would force them to extend the support. I also doubt that they want to leave the people who bought $50k Mac Pros no new OS versions 2 years after they purchased them. I would be willing to bet that Intel Macs will see at least 5 years of new MacOS support after the last Intel mac is sold.
ConnectixSoldOut
Member
3 years past last sale. -lol.
Anyone who bought a PowerMac G5 or iMac G5 would like a word. They shipped with 10.4, got 10.5 and were boat anchors. I expect the same will happen to the Intel Macs today. They'll get Big Sur 2.0 (macOS 12?) and that'll be it.
Anyone who bought a PowerMac G5 or iMac G5 would like a word. They shipped with 10.4, got 10.5 and were boat anchors. I expect the same will happen to the Intel Macs today. They'll get Big Sur 2.0 (macOS 12?) and that'll be it.
I really don't want to derail the thread, but 10.5 was Leopard and it only dropped support for the G3 processor and some slower G4s. It was released in October of 2007. The G5 iMac was discontinued in March of 2006 and the Power G5 was discontinued in August of 2006. PowerPC support was dropped in 10.6 Snow Leopard which was released in June of 2009. That is 34 months after the Power G5 was discontinued and 39 months after the G5 iMac. So yes, I'll stick with 3 years after the Intel Macs are discontinued as the minimum target for dropping Intel support.
I have no use for Parallels anymore if I can't virtualize Mac OS as guest os. I have had subscription just being unused for almost 2 years now. I think the reason parallels is not coming out and saying it out right is because many of their customers are either in the same situation with their hardware upgrades or will be. They really need to do it right by the customers and provide us guidance if there will not be a short term release for support.
+1 for macOS-on-macOS as the main use case.
Virtualization has been a major point at the initial M1 presentation. I am disappointed by both Apple and Parallels, that full virtualization is still not here, not even a timeline, not even much talk about it. I can understand that x86-on-M1 emulation is not available, although I would have expected a solution for that, too, after the initial big words. But macOS-on-macOS still nowhere in sight?
Virtualization has been a major point at the initial M1 presentation. I am disappointed by both Apple and Parallels, that full virtualization is still not here, not even a timeline, not even much talk about it. I can understand that x86-on-M1 emulation is not available, although I would have expected a solution for that, too, after the initial big words. But macOS-on-macOS still nowhere in sight?
I also find it highly problematic, macOS virtualization isn't available on M1 - and in my opinion, it's undermining the M1 as a platform.
It's impossible to test apps, build clean packages etc. for IT departments on M1 hardware - I mean, ARM macOS wasn't designed to be a platform only for playing, surfing, or was it?
It's impossible to test apps, build clean packages etc. for IT departments on M1 hardware - I mean, ARM macOS wasn't designed to be a platform only for playing, surfing, or was it?
ConnectixSoldOut
Member
Eh. macOS virtualization was an unintended bonus on the flip to Intel. It never existed in the PowerPC days.. and it always ran like ass on the Intel side (IMO). macOS's dependance on OpenGL acceleration since 10.2 meant it'd never run "well" in a VM. Apple never supported/promised it back on the Intel switch, we lucked out that we could run it for the last 15 years. Maybe they enable it again, maybe not. I suspect not. The security related bits when it comes to the boot process for Big Sur on ARM probably won't allow Parallels/VMware to enable it (and pre Big-Sur isn't available on ARM).
I don't see x86 virtualization coming any time soon.. and the performance hit is probably severe enough to make it not worth while.
Worse case, there's always Mac Stadium.
I don't see x86 virtualization coming any time soon.. and the performance hit is probably severe enough to make it not worth while.
Worse case, there's always Mac Stadium.
P
Parallels User
IDK, I use Big Sur (11.4) as both the Host and Guest OS, along with other guests for Linux and Windows 10. I am not having any issues with Big Sur installation on x86 MBP. Yet, stability of the guest with nearly every variant of OS-X version (pre-Big Sur or post) is poor with the latest releases of Parallels. From my memory I've not seen this many issue, and I am not experiencing stability issues with Linux or Windows 10 guests.
Well quite a lot has changed since PowerPC days... And if you use it for testing purposes and or packaging, the question whether it runs smoothly (or looks good) is less relevant - most of all, it just needs to work.
Of course if a system like this works for 15 years or similar, 1st of all you don't expect it to be abolished just like that - and 2nd, when working with developing, testing and using management systems like Jamf, you use the possibilities given for developing purposes, you build on the possibilties given. 15 years is a really long time - changing such basic possibilities like that after such a long time, is asking for trouble IMHO.
I mean it's obvious, Apple never cared much about business users, enterprise setups etc.; but are we supposed to be happy + grateful about this?!?
Of course if a system like this works for 15 years or similar, 1st of all you don't expect it to be abolished just like that - and 2nd, when working with developing, testing and using management systems like Jamf, you use the possibilities given for developing purposes, you build on the possibilties given. 15 years is a really long time - changing such basic possibilities like that after such a long time, is asking for trouble IMHO.
I mean it's obvious, Apple never cared much about business users, enterprise setups etc.; but are we supposed to be happy + grateful about this?!?