Enable Hyper-V on MacBook Pro Late 2016 makes bootcamp unusable

Your Parallels installation is intended for a functional test. Should a performance test use more standard configuration compared to a BC/Windows Mac?

Who said anything about testing? I just want to do development.

SierraDan wrote:

Running a VM within a VM is not the ideal way, for obvious reasons (performance, resources, etc)

Are the highlighted parts causing development issues? You can allocate more vCPUs/Memory, of course limited by available resources.

Yes, I know that. My point is it is disappointing I need to use a VM at all. I want to have the option to use Boot Camp and utilise full system resources for development.

On the Mac, bare-metal Bootcamp does not support Hyper-V, unless you have access to a 2012 or older Mac. A cheap PC may be another option to consider.

Loner T, please try to be helpful and seek first to understand. GBMini is right and has a valid issue. We too are having the exact same issue. We are a team of software engineers that develop on Apple, Droid, and Windows platforms. We have been buying MacBook Pros for this purpose for years, including the previous 2015 model. Other than the annoying need to boot first into OS-X, and then warm boot over to Windows to enable hardware virtualization, we have NOT had an issue running Hyper-V on the machines, until the latest 2016 models with TouchBar. We too are doing Xamarin development, and we too need to run the emulators. The issue is further complicated in that once Hyper-V is enabled, these new machines hang indefinitely, requiring a Windows Safe Mode boot. Now try that without a function key! So far, the only way we can even get into Safe mode with the TouchBar is a perfectly timed (with loads of trial and error) Command-R a split second after selecting Windows from the boot option, and we only get that to work 1 out of 50 tries.

This is a real issue as more and more software relies on virtualization, such as containers, etc. As developers, it is super important... a deal breaker to be honest, and might force us to look at having to develop on two different physical machines, use much slower virtualization within virtualzation (and performance does matter for development productivity), or possibly consider going Hackintosh on a machine without these issues, etc.

Have you found a way around this issue? Our team is having exact same problem and we are getting ready to return the units. Also, have you found a better way, other than a very well timed Command-R, to get into Safe Mode? Hyper-V is keeping our builds from even booting at all, even if left overnight.

kurtbaby wrote:

Loner T, please try to be helpful and seek first to understand.

I maintain a PPC environment to allow development on older hardware. Please also remember I do not work for Apple.

I am not trying to defend them. 😉

Other than the annoying need to boot first into OS-X, and then warm boot over to Windows to enable hardware virtualization, we have NOT had an issue running Hyper-V on the machines, until the latest 2016 models with TouchBar.

CSM-BIOS has been deprecating on Macs since Late 2013 models. Your are buying bleeding edge hardware and expecting 5-10 year-old features to be fully supported. Is that valid? I have given you possible alternatives. You need to decide between latest eye-candy and working Hyper-V. Based on your choices, you may need to buy both. Given your development experience, you do realize what it means/takes to support legacy hardware/software.

This is a real issue as more and more software relies on virtualization, such as containers, etc. As developers, it is super important... a deal breaker to be honest, and might force us to look at having to develop on two different physical machines, use much slower virtualization within virtualzation (and performance does matter for development productivity), or possibly consider going Hackintosh on a machine without these issues, etc.

I understand software relies on virtualization. We use racks of UCS for such stuff in DCs. What I am suggesting is to maintain a stable development environment for all the features you support. If you support Hyper-V, ensure you can duplicate a production issue on a platform that a customer has. Instead of fighting Apple on Hyper-V support, consider an Intel NUC. Hackintosh's technically break the EULA you sign with Apple. Remember Psystar?

I am confused by your comments regarding "expecting 5-10 year old features to be fully supported." I have a new MBP. I am using the latest production Microsoft OS, which Apple claims to support BTW, I am using current, in production, Dev tools and Hypervisor technologies... What exactly are the "5-10 year old features" here? The BIOS emulation?

The fact remains that Apple sells us hardware with Boot Camp support for Windows 10. Hyper-V and other Hypervisors do not recognize that the MBP supports hardware virtualization in Windows unless the machines are warm-booted from OSX. However, the 2016 MBPs hang if Hyper-V is enabled, regardless of the warm boot trick we've used for years.

Microsoft will point the finger at Apple and Apple will point the finger at Microsoft. For what it's worth, I am trying to escalate the issue at Apple to see if there is a solution here. If not, we'll have to re-think how we do cross platform development and testing going forward.

kurtbaby wrote:

I am confused by your comments regarding "expecting 5-10 year old features to be fully supported." I have a new MBP. I am using the latest production Microsoft OS, which Apple claims to support BTW, I am using current, in production, Dev tools and Hypervisor technologies... What exactly are the "5-10 year old features" here? The BIOS emulation?

Yes. And I have suggested that you use older hardware, if you need such features. A 2012 MBP is only 4 years old. Your decision to use a 2016 tbMBP makes no sense, when you know Hyper-V is not supported, correct?

The fact remains that Apple sells us hardware with Boot Camp support for Windows 10. Hyper-V and other Hypervisors do not recognize that the MBP supports hardware virtualization in Windows unless the machines are warm-booted from OSX. However, the 2016 MBPs hang if Hyper-V is enabled, regardless of the warm boot trick we've used for years.

Apple sells you a Mac running OS X and utilities that support Windows. Apple does not separately charge you for Bootcamp and Bootcamp drivers. Compatibility is an arms race between new features and stability. Warm-booting is only valid for Hyper-V on older Macs. If you need Hyper-V specifically, Microsoft is a better resource to try and address your issue.

On EFI Boot Macs, virtualization software using Intel VT-X exists - VMware Fusion, VirtualBox, Parallels, which does not require CSM-BIOS. The Hyper-V incorrectly derives that the hardware supports Hyper-V. From my perspective Hyper-V is broken.

Microsoft will point the finger at Apple and Apple will point the finger at Microsoft. For what it's worth, I am trying to escalate the issue at Apple to see if there is a solution here. If not, we'll have to re-think how we do cross platform development and testing going forward.

I suggest asking Microsoft why Hyper-V hangs a Mac, when Parallels, Fusion and VirtualBox work. I understand your dilemma. My recommendation is to maintain separate environments. If your developers want to, give them Windows Remote Desktop and VPN, and they can connect to a HP/Dell/UCS/IBM running Windows and Hyper-V. The other option to consider is the Intel NUC route.

I plan on contacting Microsoft, but I do take exception to one of your comments, "And I have suggested that you use older hardware, if you need such features. A 2012 MBP is only 4 years old. Your decision to use a 2016 tbMBP makes no sense, when you know Hyper-V is not supported, correct?"

For the record, Apple doesn't officially state that they do NOT support Hyper-V, and these machines are sold by Apple as supporting Windows 10 using Boot Camp. Until the latest laptops arrived only yesterday, we had always used the warm-boot workaround and never had a problem until just now, so we didn't know that Hyper-V wouldn't work. We haven't made any decision one way or the other but the whole purpose of these posts is to seek help. The problem with using older hardware is Apple's discontinuation of support, which has burned us in the past. We are a relatively small company that has to make wise investments for our development team. This was our chosen solution until the 2016 models arrived yesterday. We are just posting to see if anybody has a constructive solution that would allow us to make investments in new Apple hardware that resets our support clock with Apple. And we really don't want to have to be tethered to our virtual machine farm either.

kurtbaby wrote:

I plan on contacting Microsoft, but I do take exception to one of your comments, "And I have suggested that you use older hardware, if you need such features. A 2012 MBP is only 4 years old. Your decision to use a 2016 tbMBP makes no sense, when you know Hyper-V is not supported, correct?"

For the record, Apple doesn't officially state that they do NOT support Hyper-V, and these machines are sold by Apple as supporting Windows 10 using Boot Camp. Until the latest laptops arrived only yesterday, we had always used the warm-boot workaround and never had a problem until just now, so we didn't know that Hyper-V wouldn't work.

For the record, Apple does not state they do support Fusion, Parallels or VirtualBox either. Hyper-V is one more product in the family. The onus of certifying relies on Microsoft as the vendor of the product as it does on VMware, Parallels or Oracle-Sun for their respective offerings.

If these arrived yesterday, do you have a return policy in your contract with Apple or reseller? Did you order just one as an evaluation to check if it met your requirements/needs before you ordered 14 more?

These were announced in October, 2016. Let me give you an example. I walked into an Apple store a week after these came out, bought one in the store using my credit card, carried my Windows 10 ISO with me. Ran Bootcamp, installed W10, tested it for a couple of hours, noted all that was broken, returned the tbMBP in a couple of hours and got a refund because it did not meet my requirements. I have done this before with the iMac 5Ks. I cannot afford to have 15 Macs at my doorstep which do not meet my needs.

I am not being unsympathetic to your issue, but Caveat Emptor. My recommendation is to look for a potential return.

We haven't made any decision one way or the other but the whole purpose of these posts is to seek help. The problem with using older hardware is Apple's discontinuation of support, which has burned us in the past. We are a relatively small company that has to make wise investments for our development team. This was our chosen solution until the 2016 models arrived yesterday. We are just posting to see if anybody has a constructive solution that would allow us to make investments in new Apple hardware that resets our support clock with Apple. And we really don't want to have to be tethered to our virtual machine farm either.

New features are released and old ones are deprecated. Do you buy these from a certified Apple VAR? I think they can help you. Right now, unless Apple releases a new firmware, you may need a work around.

The other thing to point out is that Sierra 10.12.2 (10.12.0/10.12.1 are broken in this respect) supports older Macs and allows a BIOS/MBR installation of W7/W8/W10. The CSM-BIOS layer has not been completely removed, but features are being deprecated.

There is a post on this discussion that a 2015 Mac is running Hyper-V correctly. I would like to see some details, because all my testing has shown that it is broken after 2014 Macs.

If you are willing to sift through a debug and boot logs, we can look at why this is not working on 2016 Macs. The derivation of the Hyper-V flags also seems to be broken in W10. Microsoft may be a better ally in this battle.

If you are interested in further debugging, see looking-at-the-hyper-v-event-log link.

Honestly, your overall tone is borderline offensive. Its off-putting when users come into a user based forum looking for peer to peer assistance and you use hostile language toward them. The whole 'well I purchased installed, noted bugs, and then returned" as though, we that didn't are somehow less than you. Sir, offer assistance, or information, but the tone, we can do without. Thanks.

BiggStuu wrote:

Honestly, your overall tone is borderline offensive. Its off-putting when users come into a user based forum looking for peer to peer assistance and you use hostile language toward them.

There is a difference between being hostile and factual. It has also been clearly stated why it does not work. Clear path to feedback to the vendor has also been noted.

Sir, offer assistance, or information, but the tone, we can do without. Thanks.

It was offered.