I'm a recent discoverer of this thread, and as a prospective Parallels customer (with the hope of using Boot Camp in both the VM and native capacity, as purported and openly advertised by Parallels as a feature) I find the experiences listed here an invaluable resource and warning. In opening, and to all involved in this thread, a thanks for your contributions.
Thank you.
Only upon finding this thread and information (among other limited sources) is it even apparent that there is a problem with Windows 10 in VM environments. Upon calls to both sales and support staff at Parallels, in my own experience, the common script is that there is no such issue, and that Parallels full functionality as advertised is to be expected upon install - including the full functionality of both BC VM in conjunction with the continued usage of native BC, with no mention of any Windows 10 activation conflicts whatsoever once both are running.
Based on the experiences outlined in this thread, such continued falsehoods seem beyond reproach.
And so, with so much ongoing mis- or dis-information circling, perhaps it would be best to begin with an updated (January 2017) question for this thread, and then a suggestion; both of which could hopefully help any other prospective (and patiently waiting) buyers/users/customers such as myself:
Question:
Is the primary problem outlined in this thread* yet resolved?
*(The "primary problem" obviously being the hardware-based activation of Windows 10 - apparently mainly or especially from upgrade versions as this thread would imply - being problematic, conflicted and/or impossible with a single Microsoft license under Parallels Boot-Camp-pointed VM, as I read/understand it.)
-- If No, then --
Throughout this thread (yes I've read it in its entirety), the only consistency seems to have remained inconsistency; inconsistency from Parallels support, inconsistency from Microsoft support, inconsistency in approach, success and failure on the parts of users; disrespected, unsupported, guinea-pig-forced users. Some users - whether by chance or through exercises in extreme patience and pain - seem to have realized successes, while others continue to head-bash solid walls of corporate apathy, incompetence, misunderstanding or downright greed deceit and denial.
Not at all uncommon in the Microsoft and PC development world, this would hardly be the first time that knowledge of and accountability for conflicts had been blatantly denied and shifted at the corporate level, at the suffering and abandonment of end users - regardless of where "blame" truly lies. But regardless of blame and where it does belong, companies often remain shiftless in such examples as this, regardless of what end users need and cry out for. And so, in an attempt to refrain from further counter-productive finger-pointing (which the two parties involved, here, seem determined to continue to employ quite effectively as a tool to avoid responsibility, repercussion and any change in profitability much less development), I wonder if a summary page or post or poll focused on this thread's "alumni" might be constructive at this time to consolidate this ongoing volume and ordeal into something visible and consistent? A kind of "survey of the sufferers" to see where this problem currently stands?
And so...
Suggestion:
Summary poll or post of this thread's users - successful or no - and key elements of their experiences (perhaps as a sticky header).
What I suggest might be something inclusive of the following crucial and consistent information:
- User name
- SUCCESS or FAILURE made clear in title or header line
- Version of Parallels used in attempt
- Type of Windows 10 installation(s) attempted for both BC VM and native BC activations (examples: Upgrade from Win"X", Clean Win10 installation from purchase, Enterprise edition, Education edition, etc.)
- Type of activation technique(s) used or attempted (examples: Online activation, Phone activation, Command line slui 4, Command line slui 3, Other command line(s), some combination of any/all, etc.)
- Other anecdotal details, relevant process descriptions or content
Invited to commit entries would be any and all who have had experience with the core activation issue(s); successful and unsuccessful alike; past or present; living, dead, departed or lost from this thread. (Especially those who have left the thread, no matter the reason. Often, stories of great frustration or great success can be the most valuable of all.) And perhaps a running tally of successes vs. failures might excite the admins as well (since none seem to frequently participate).
I believe with this kind of summary from users in this thread who have seen success or failure, a better picture might be formed of what works and and why, what doesn't work and why; and equally importantly might represent a demonstration of end-user empathy and solidarity where it is not otherwise a current component of "support" from other sources during a time of frustration and waiting for final solutions.
I know that I, for one, would benefit from a single-view kind of summation like this, which included users' actual successes and failures in a consolidated format of some kind.
I also know that - based on what I've seen here - I won't be touching Parallels (trialware or otherwise) until I know this core issue is truly resolved. (And neither will I, for one, be participating in the guinea-pigging to find out if it has. I leave that to you brave and dedicated souls. If someone wants to provide a test machine I'd be more than willing and capable. But not with my currently cultivated and grass-fed setup. No way. My second unanswered question on the "will Parallels work for me" list is: "Does Parallels alter my Boot Camp installation in any permanent way, and can it be uninstalled without affect or trace, if or as desired?" Judging from experiences here I don't know that I'd trust ANY answer from support at this point. I shouldn't have to consider utilizing backups and images as a necessity just to install, run, or uninstall VM software cleanly and safely. As a precaution? Yes. As a necessity? No. The subsequent question should always be, "What's wrong with the software causing such a necessity, and is it, therefore worth installing?" )
The ability to use Windows 10 as a VM within macOS is a powerful tool. It allows all the advantages of a great and tested Apple product to be devoted to and used with Windows OS, with little to no sacrifice in performance, and often with enhancement and improved experience with the guest machine.
But there remains an inescapable list of reasons to continue to use and have access to Windows 10 via a solid standalone Boot Camp partition and installation as well; not least of which are full hardware and resource utilization as needed and on demand, full driver and graphics utilization without restriction, and full standalone Windows operability in general and as desired and as paid for. This is the only autonomy that matters; and expectations of settling for anything less than full functionality from great hardware because of a software or OS licensing issue is ridiculous. Mac users scoff at such notions, and pay nothing to do so - with benefits and upgrades included - and (if anyone in this pay-for-upgrades model is listening) they should.
And, again, this ongoing issue is not only not listed as a known deficiency, it continues to be advertised as a feature.
Maybe Parallels version 12 has resolved these issues with Windows 10 licensing activation, maybe it hasn't. But I have not yet found verification of either condition under a series of circumstances. And until I do, the prospect of using Parallels "experimentally", or by sacrificing original Boot Camp operability will remain an unacceptably restrictive approach to running Windows 10 on a Mac; and it will remain a deal breaker.
Last edited: Jan 13, 2017
