Big Sur Public Beta and Parallels 16 - Only showing a 3Mb graphics card

I just hate it when you get bullshit answers blaming an external API.

I just ran up the Fusion Tech Preview (free), a Big Sur VM on Catalina Host downloaded the latest VMware tools and I have Big Sur running at 4K resolution with 128Mb of video memory allocated.

So it is completely possible to provide this functionality.
 
stuartf said:
I just hate it when you get bullshit answers blaming an external API.

I just ran up the Fusion Tech Preview (free), a Big Sur VM on Catalina Host downloaded the latest VMware tools and I have Big Sur running at 4K resolution with 128Mb of video memory allocated.

So it is completely possible to provide this functionality.
Click to expand...
Thanks for confirming this, I have just logged a report with Parallels for the problem.
 
stuartf said:
The 3Mb graphics card is a bug that needs to be fixed. saying higher resolution is only available on a host version of Big Sur is negating the reason that I and I guess others use Parallels. To test out new OS versions before upgrading

Without this option Parallels 16 is valueless
Click to expand...

I agree that this is unacceptable. If this is truly an Apple API limitation, then Parallels should point to the documentation or some sort of explanation from Apple. Now, if this issue is because Big Sur is still in beta, that's understandable.

And @stuartf claims he can run a Big Sure VM on Catalina with full graphic support with VMWare so unless Parallels can refute this I am also calling BS.
 
My personal suspicion is that this just needs an updated version of Parallels Tools to fix. The stock VMware tools exhibited the same 3Mb issue. As soon as I downloaded the latest 11.1.1.x VMware tools the problem went away. The same API restrictions must apply equally to Parallels and Fusion!
 
Miles_Teg said:
I agree that this is unacceptable. If this is truly an Apple API limitation, then Parallels should point to the documentation or some sort of explanation from Apple. Now, if this issue is because Big Sur is still in beta, that's understandable.

And @stuartf claims he can run a Big Sure VM on Catalina with full graphic support with VMWare so unless Parallels can refute this I am also calling BS.
Click to expand...

I should clarify that 3D graphics acceleration was not available under Fusion. I can understand that this would need deeper Metal integration
 
Same issue with 1024x768 and Parallels 16. And yes, the whole point of running a VM is to use an OS that is not running on the bare metal! Shame Parallels, Shame.
 
I have the same issue. In the German store it is mentioned:
  • Optimiert für die neusten Windows 10-Updates, macOS Catalina und kompatibel mit macOS Big Sur (11.0)
(= Optimzed for the newest Windows 10-Updates, macOS Catalina and compatible with MacOS Big Sur (11.0))
Now we see, that this is a misleading advertisement from Parallels.
 
stuartf said:
should clarify that 3D graphics acceleration was not available under Fusion. I can understand that this would need deeper Metal integration
Click to expand...
Agree VMWare tools from latest version 11.5.6-16696540 updating fusion technology preview does indeed resolve the graphics memory allocation and allows acceptable display performance but still lacks full metal support, i.e. macOS transparency is nonexistent. Only full screen provides full resolution. In my case 2560x1600. Windowed VM still on supports 1024x768 but does have better graphic performance.
 
My support ticket has been closed with an "it's been escalated to the second line technical support team who don't share the eta for a fix and will either reopen your ticket or log a new one to inform you when it's fixed" BS.

You can be sure I'll never hear from them again.
 
This was the response I received for my ticket regarding the issue. I wish Parallels would give a consistent statement and actually have a useful answer.
Please wait for the official release of big sur and then install it inside Parallels Desktop as a virtual machine to see the difference.
Click to expand...
 
This support needs to be expanded to 10.14 especially since we need this for 32 bit apps and games. This is so important.
 
This is pretty pathetic. a 1024 resolution is worthless. I have installed Fusion 12 preview and after a little fiddling has it running at over 3k resolution. With VMWare announcing there will be a free Fusion 12 for personal use that pretty much takes away all the reason for sticking with Parallels.

Their service and support has been headed downhill of late in direct relation to their arrogance increasing.

Like many I asked if there was going to be any Win VM support on Apple Silicon. Original response - wait for Big Sur. Responded that we would all like something better than that response and politely asked for a Yes, No, Don't know yet answer - my post was deleted. Arrogance in the extreme.

If Fusion continues to work well once BS is released it's likely the end of over 10? years commitment to Parallels.
 
AMCMO said:
This is pretty pathetic. a 1024 resolution is worthless. I have installed Fusion 12 preview and after a little fiddling has it running at over 3k resolution. With VMWare announcing there will be a free Fusion 12 for personal use that pretty much takes away all the reason for sticking with Parallels.
Click to expand...
Oh that's good news. I upgraded to Parallels Pro back in December so this gives me time to move my VMs over to Fusion and cancel it. I've been a subscriber to Parallels since V5, paying to upgrade every year and this was the first time I went down the Pro route. I think it's now the time for me to move on.
 
Nentecular said:
Oh that's good news. I upgraded to Parallels Pro back in December so this gives me time to move my VMs over to Fusion and cancel it. I've been a subscriber to Parallels since V5, paying to upgrade every year and this was the first time I went down the Pro route. I think it's now the time for me to move on.
Click to expand...

I am in a similar position. I have been using Parallels Desktop for Mac quite happily since 3.0 with an annual paid upgrade ever since. I consider this to be an essential tool for what I do. I have never once considered switching to a competing product until now. The level of disappointment I feel is hard to express.
 
I installed Big Sur on MacBook Pro to see if it would solve the 1024x768 limit on Big Sur VM. But now I cannot open any VM due to crash.
 
Ummm, you guys do realize that the reason this is happening because of API needed that doesn't physically exist in older macOS, and maybe last year this wasn't a problem but this is a different OS with a lot more changes than normal. They said it works when the native os is macOS 11, its not ideal but you are running a fraking beta so stop SH!ting on the parallels team.
 
Nentecular said:
I got the notification for Parallels 16 this morning and installed it straight away.

Parallels Tools now installs and Big Sur boots OK but it's only reporting a 3Mb graphics card and I can't change the resolution from 1024x768. This also means no hardware acceleration and dreadful performance.

Parallels Version 16.0.0 (48916)
macOS Big Sur 11.0 Beta (20A5343j)

LGjiko9.png
Click to expand...

Can we change 3Mb graphics card to more size by Parallels settings? Although I checked the assigned graphics memory was 64MB as default, and so this is not reflected the guest OS (Big Sur)? Is it by Big Sur or Parallels problem?
 
Today I tried to install Big Sur beta 5, but I could not install it, and it stopped "Apple" mark display and without any progress bar! Totally failed!
So I installed Big Sur beta 4 and upgraded it to beta 5 online, and it succeeded, but only 1024x768 display!
Paralleles should sriously investigate and provide us the infromation or new version as soon as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top