Parallels desktop 11 and Directx 11
- Thread starter DominusNox
- Start date
FriedrichW
Junior Member
The same is true for OpenGL. The answers in these Forum from Support are the most time a joke. I'm working also in the software business, if we would do the same our clients where gone. Please give us real information about these issues. You are really late to the party, the most girls are gone
JohnnyfiveN
Member
Hi!Anything new about Directx11??
The Autodesk 3dsmax2015/17 need this for active anti aliasing.Please do it something.
The Autodesk 3dsmax2015/17 need this for active anti aliasing.Please do it something.
Last edited:
Workaround maybe?
Hi, I ran a popular game makers benchmark test under
Parallels with Windows 7 X4 and it failed on many counts,
the key being the absence of DirectX 11. Running the
same benchmark test booted into a bootcamp drive,
the test passed with a score of Very High.
Given that Parallels allows for accessing an established
bootcamp windows drive, will the Directx 11, inherent
in the bootcamp drive, be retained or forfeited when
pulled into Parallels?
I'm reluctant to experiment with this until hearing from you guys,
fearing that I might screw things up.
Thanks much!
Hi, I ran a popular game makers benchmark test under
Parallels with Windows 7 X4 and it failed on many counts,
the key being the absence of DirectX 11. Running the
same benchmark test booted into a bootcamp drive,
the test passed with a score of Very High.
Given that Parallels allows for accessing an established
bootcamp windows drive, will the Directx 11, inherent
in the bootcamp drive, be retained or forfeited when
pulled into Parallels?
I'm reluctant to experiment with this until hearing from you guys,
fearing that I might screw things up.
Thanks much!
To be blunt I'd suggest you'd be wasting your time. We're WELL PAST the time where DX11 support would be current even if supported, it's likely you won't see DX11 or DX12 support in either Parallels or VMware anytime soon.
This thread has heard the "promises about development commitment" for years now! I'm still on Parallels 11 and will be until there is confirmed DX12 support in their next product IF I stick with it that long. I have Parallels purely for gaming because I have less than a dozen games that have no OS X native or even a fluent port. Given that I no longer buy games now if they don't provide an OS X client, the usefulness of Parallels continues to dwindle while there is no DX12 support. I don't even consider DX11 support an suitable response any longer. If the next DX supported isn't at least the current MS version, then I'll be sticking to Parallels 11 until the end of my days. It's pointless dragging my gaming feet 2 versions behind continually. May as just stay and let my games go extinct or hope that VMware ups the game (excuse the pun).
Craig.
Hi CraigMS, yeah, i'm not surprised.
I'll end up booting to bootcamp windoze 10 for gaming, and then i'll either Screenshare from another Mac into windoze, or do KVM Switch another Mac into play. Priority goes to running Mac over Lan into Screen-share onto the bootcamp windoze, unless windoze pukes on me.
I'll end up booting to bootcamp windoze 10 for gaming, and then i'll either Screenshare from another Mac into windoze, or do KVM Switch another Mac into play. Priority goes to running Mac over Lan into Screen-share onto the bootcamp windoze, unless windoze pukes on me.
Hi @JohnnyfiveN, while Parallels strives to provide the best Mac virtualization platform, Parallels Desktop for Mac is subject to a host operating system and its limitations. Unfortunately, macOS does not support OpenGL Compute Shaders which are required to implement DirectX 11 support, meaning we are currently unable to create this functionality.
We maintain a good relationship with Apple and have discussed the aforementioned concerns with them. We closely monitor any API Reference documentation changes at developer.apple.com in the hopes of receiving the required instructions from Apple, but we do not have them as of yet. Please rest assured that we do want to implement better graphics support for guest systems, and once we have the necessary documentation, we will create the functionality to do so.
So basically what you're saying is that Parallels is a simple hypervisor, not a virtual PC emulator.
Does Metal not give you close enough access to the hardware?
Yes, you are correct! [email protected], please rest assured that we do want to implement better graphics support for guest systems, and once we have the necessary documentation, we will create the functionality to do so.
ValentineW
Bit poster
I stumbled across this thread and was dumbfounded. I purchased a copy of Parallels 8 as part of a university technology package, despite the purchase being required. It was intended to run Microsoft software for game development that would not run natively on the Mac. I received a free upgrade to Parallels 9. By Parallels 10, it became my responsibility to purchase the upgrades directly. I decided not to upgrade at the time, as the current version was more than adequate.
After upgrading the system to the newest MacOS, retaining that version was no longer an option. It forced me to decide if I would upgrade or discontinue use. The irony is that the current build is now Parallels 12, which requires a subscription. I can no longer purchase a permanent copy of the newest software. I have to pay monthly for software that does not provide the newest support and has been giving empty promises about it for years.
I am appalled by the number of times that I have read "our development team is working on it" compared to the number of years that have passed since that was first stated. The development team is not working on it. Please stop the lies. Working and putting it on a list of future plans are entirely different things. If you want people to continue to pay for the product, then it may be time to provide a product worth supporting. What good is an entire software suite that can provide no better support than 100 other free tools out there? Coherence and other visual features are far less impressive when all they can run is outdated software.
Edit: To prevent further confusion, http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/#anchor-compare is a comparison of available versions. Please note that the Standard version is limited to 8 GB and 4 CPUs. When attempting to upgrade from within the software, the "one-time" purchase option was not presented.
After upgrading the system to the newest MacOS, retaining that version was no longer an option. It forced me to decide if I would upgrade or discontinue use. The irony is that the current build is now Parallels 12, which requires a subscription. I can no longer purchase a permanent copy of the newest software. I have to pay monthly for software that does not provide the newest support and has been giving empty promises about it for years.
I am appalled by the number of times that I have read "our development team is working on it" compared to the number of years that have passed since that was first stated. The development team is not working on it. Please stop the lies. Working and putting it on a list of future plans are entirely different things. If you want people to continue to pay for the product, then it may be time to provide a product worth supporting. What good is an entire software suite that can provide no better support than 100 other free tools out there? Coherence and other visual features are far less impressive when all they can run is outdated software.
Edit: To prevent further confusion, http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/#anchor-compare is a comparison of available versions. Please note that the Standard version is limited to 8 GB and 4 CPUs. When attempting to upgrade from within the software, the "one-time" purchase option was not presented.
Last edited:
ValentineW
Bit poster
That is the Standard version (likely without an upgrade).
I have edited the post to explain why it is called a subscription. It is not a matter of whether or not an option exists, but whether or not it is equivalent. Having the option to buy a restricted version at full price coming from a full version is like having paid off a college degree and taking out a second loan to get a GED.
It's a step backwards.
Last edited:
I too in the interests of fairness also have to point out there is still a "standalone" version that can still be purchased, but it's pointless. You'll gain not one significant benefit over the previous two versions. Despite they're (Parallels) push about better for Windows 10, I'm running Windows 10 in Parallels Version 11 with no issues other than the lack of Directx 11 or 12 support. This product's developers have had the last two years to get "documentation & APIs" for Metal and done nothing with that time. Granted, neither have VMware so I'm willing to concede it's not just a "let's snap it in" type feature.
That said, the ONLY reason I had to buy Parallels was that it had solid critical support as a better environment for video support and windows game performance. It's not really maintained that in my opinion: I run VMware virtual machines too and as time has dragged on I have been comparing game performance under both VMWare & Parallels for both Windows 7 & Windows 10. I'm unable to demonstrate to myself a reason to continue to support the idea that Parallels justifies itself over VMware. Directx 10 support was released in VMware within weeks of it being released in Parallels AND the VMware licensing is much more relaxed with regard to the number of client installs you can run. To be frank, the way it stands at present, if I had to recover from a disaster, Parallels probably wouldn't even go back on as I'd have no reason to justify the install and I'd just reinstall my Steam Backups into VMware and save myself installing an extra application now.
That said, the ONLY reason I had to buy Parallels was that it had solid critical support as a better environment for video support and windows game performance. It's not really maintained that in my opinion: I run VMware virtual machines too and as time has dragged on I have been comparing game performance under both VMWare & Parallels for both Windows 7 & Windows 10. I'm unable to demonstrate to myself a reason to continue to support the idea that Parallels justifies itself over VMware. Directx 10 support was released in VMware within weeks of it being released in Parallels AND the VMware licensing is much more relaxed with regard to the number of client installs you can run. To be frank, the way it stands at present, if I had to recover from a disaster, Parallels probably wouldn't even go back on as I'd have no reason to justify the install and I'd just reinstall my Steam Backups into VMware and save myself installing an extra application now.
ValentineW
Bit poster
Which is why it was overlooked. The post was updated to explain this, since a lot of people appear to get stuck on it not being mentioned.