![]() Technically this should work (and does) however remember VMware Fusion does not support all of the same features as VMware Workstation. (Really just don't remember which forum but it was posted by a VMware employee.) I saw a post recently in IIRC the VMware Workstation forum describing how to implement this so a search of the forums and or Google should turn up something. The best was to see the difference is to just test the different scenarios on your own system then you have actual real world results based on your hardware and your system configuration!Īlso note that hardware supported OpenGL under Linux is only now experimental and limited. However, since Mac Mini do not have a disc drive and the Lion disc is not provided but downloaded directly from the internet, how do I install Lion as a VM? It refused to download from the internet from the "BIOS" whereby the Physical Mac itself is able to. Before ever installing an OS, I know that I can install any Linux or Windows build on my Mac, while Workstation on a PC will never run Mac OS X. I understand that Apple allows Lion to be virtualized for free. The benefits of VMware Fusion on a Mac are immediately apparent. If I place my VMs on a 3rd partition formatted as FAT32, will I be able to run the VM in Fusion when in Mac and the same VM again in Workstation when in Windows? If I want to have Linux (most likely Fedora or Mint) installed as a VM, I like to know will Linux run faster on Fusion or Workstation? What about 3D such as 3D games and CADs? Anyone run benchmark for Fusion vs Workstation on the Same VM running on the same machine? I intend to divide the drive into 3 Partitions as followed:Į: 300GB for Mac and Windows Doc Storage as FAT32 I intend to install Windows 7 via bootcamp so that I can access to varies devices that only have Windows drivers. ![]() They were part of Apple’s original Apple Silicon preview (running Linux).I just purchase a Mac mini and have both Fusion and Workstation. Under this possibility, Microsoft may “authorize” additional products once they achieve acceptable performance.Ī related possibility is that Parallels is just more focused on the Mac market than VMWare. VMWare waited until it was pretty clear Microsoft wouldn’t shut down the unsupported use of Windows ARM on Apple Silicon Macs. Gradually Parallels expanded their enterprise efforts, but the consumer market was more likely to experiment with an unsupported OS, enabling them to work out the kinks with a larger beta audience than what is available to VMWare. ![]() ![]() Parallels originally targeted the consumer market while VMWare focused on enterprises. This could be why Parallels poured so much time and energy early on when Microsoft was saying Windows on Apple Silicon was “not supported.”Ī second possibility is that Parallels figured that that if they built a virtual machine that ran Windows on ARM well enough on Apple Silicon, Microsoft would eventually acquiesce. They could want one “official” channel because of the known limitations of Windows 11 ARM on Apple Silicon (no nested virtualization, DirectX 12, etc.). One is that Microsoft intentionally reached out to Parallels and told them that they would authorize Parallels for running Windows 11 ARM once their exclusivity with Qualcomm expired. Click to expand.Today’s announcements from Microsoft and Parallels raise a few possibilities.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |