Will Parallels work on new (2009) Mac mini?

Z

Zeke Zarnosky

Bit poster
Have noted some posts elsewhere identifying new Mac mini chipset does not support hardware VT. If this is true (I have no way of determining at this point), would Parallels no longer be an option? Would probably not purchase new Mac mini if this was the case.....

Zeke
 
All new Macs have Intel chips in them that support VT. Even if they didn't you could still run Parallels but it would be slower.
 
Zeke Zarnosky said:
Have noted some posts elsewhere identifying new Mac mini chipset does not support hardware VT. If this is true (I have no way of determining at this point), would Parallels no longer be an option? Would probably not purchase new Mac mini if this was the case.....

Zeke
Click to expand...

Some of the old models of Mac mini have this bug. VT-x support is OK in recent chipsets.
 
Can We Get An Official Answer on This?

In this forum thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=81&threadid=2282516

a fellow claims to have dug around in Intel's product specs, and found the only OEM processor that matches the Early 2009 2.0GHz mini's specs. He claims this processor does not have VT:

QUOTE:
"What's particularly interesting is that the CPU in the Mini is the P7350. That's a 25W OEM-only part ... It also doesn't feature VT, which means you can't use virtual machine software with it... Digging through Intel's product sheets. There's only a single mobile processor that has 3MB of L2 cache at 2ghz, the P7350."

http://ark.intel.com/cpu.aspx?groupID=36750&code=P7350


This is obviously an extremely important issue. Can we get Parallels engineering department to check with Apple engineering department and get a definitive answer posted both here and on the system requirements page for Parallels Desktop? Even if this mini does have VT, there are enough rumors floating around that Parallels should add a statement to the product page assuring us that yes, the Early 2009 Mac mini 2.0GHz does have VT.
Thanks
 
Denouement

OK, well-regarded Primate Labs confirms the 2.0GHz Early 2009 Mac mini uses the Intel P7350 (look in the chart, new Mac mini line):

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2009/03/imac-and-mac-mini-benchmarks-early-2009/

Which does not have VT:

http://ark.intel.com/cpu.aspx?groupID=36750&code=P7350


Apple is bizarrely crippling a good virtual Windows experience in exactly the computer model that many people switching from Windows will be buying... and then maybe selling "almost new" on Craigslist in frustration... because they still need to use Windows.

Parallel's isn't helping the situation with ambiguous wording here:

http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/sr/

A careful reading of "Includes full support for Intel Virtualization Technology (VT)" under the list of processors means "[Parallels] includes full support for Intel Virtualization Technology (VT) [in those processors that may support it]".

Would be really smart to let customers know what Macs are best to buy since many are buying a mini to use with Parallels and not vice versa. I just nearly bought the 2.0GHz mini in exactly this context and would have been furious to discover after the non-returnable fact that neither Apple nor Parallels makes any effort to warn you of this situation.
 
The MacBook White (Early 2009) also uses the P7350.

Now we see why everyone is being so quiet about this.
 
But doesn't Parallels Desktop for Mac still work without VT? Might work slower but should still work (there were virtualization products long before there was VT). Parallels should confirm this.
 
Well now I'm finding some people on forums claiming that Apple has a special version of the P7350 which does have VT-x enabled.

One of these people is a representative of The Other Virtualization Company posting on their forum. He says they were "in a panic for a few days when we heard the P7350 did not support VT" but that "We asked Apple about this, and their response is that the specific package subset they use does support VT".

This sounds pretty convincing. Probably convincing enough to buy that mini 2.0GHz.

But it would be nice if Parallels could be so up on the issue as to be "in a panic" about it -- and verify for themselves and for us that Parallels Desktop is indeed able to use fully functional VT-x on the Early 2009 Mac mini 2.0GHz and MacBook White -- including for virtual 64-bit OS's -- and that this is officially supported by Apple for these Mac models going into the future.

Could a moderator please respond on this?
 
Specimen said:
there were virtualization products long before there was VT
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. There were emulation products, where the software ran on a software model of the processor -- and they were notorious slow. "Virtualization" itself means the guest OS is running directly on the hardware processor -- and they can theoretically be almost as fast as the native OS. (This is why Parallels Desktop can only run on Intel Macs.)

But is VT really important for this, or just a bonus speed boost?

Specimen said:
But doesn't Parallels Desktop for Mac still work without VT? Might work slower but should still work
Click to expand...

Well this is an essential question: exactly how much faster does VT make Parallels run (in different circumstances), and is VT absolutely required (or at least very strongly recommended) for running 64-bit virtual machines as I've read elsewhere?

Specimen said:
Parallels should confirm this.
Click to expand...

That would indeed be nice. Although hopefully (confirmation #2) it's not an issue for the current Mac product line.
 
Before VT there were emulators (emulating/translating between different architectures in the Host and Guests, e.g. between Intel x86 and PPC) and Virtual machine applications (same architecture in Guest and Host), this was in a time where there were no Intel macs but only PPC macs, so, to run Windows it was only possible thru emulators. The emergence of VT was somewhat coincident with the appearance of Intel macs and the rapid emergence of virtualization software for mac that could take advantage of OSX running on the same architecture as Windows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top