Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Please start producing REVIT for Mac. It is a must have application for architecture students and the mac industry occupies a huge part of the computer industry. We really need the software.
If Autodesk was able to bring AutoCAD to macOS—despite its long and complex history—and make it run beautifully, it’s hard to understand why Revit is still missing on Mac. With all the tools Apple provides to ease migration, there’s really no excuse anymore.
As an architect and project team leader, I have been observing Autodesk's stance towards Apple macOS users with great disappointment for years.
Autodesk openly favors only Windows users, treating macOS users as second-class citizens. Even though Apple Silicon hardware (M1/M2/M3/M4) offers excellent, and often better, performance in rendering and handling large scenes (thanks to unified memory up to 128GB of effective VRAM!) than comparable Windows laptops, Autodesk deliberately refuses to release a native version of Revit.
This decision, maintained for years despite thousands of requests on this platform, is seen as arrogant and anti-competitive. It blocks our access to the best hardware on the market and forces us to work in a worse, less efficient environment solely because one company wants to maintain a monopoly and "lock-in" of its ecosystem.
Therefore, with great regret, we are forced to make a business decision: despite our willingness to use Revit,our entire project team will remain on our current platform and begin a full implementation of Archicad software.
We are convinced that many other users share our frustration. Any company that ignores the preferences and technological progress of a platform chosen by its customers ultimately loses. We hope that our voice, as paying customers, will contribute to a revision of this short-sighted strategy.
ArchiCAD can be used on Mac and Windows. If it is a matter of additional time and cost to make the return on your investment, spread across the globe, what would be the cost to each user for Revit on a Mac? If it is a nominal cost to each user, we would likely be interested to make the payment and use the Macs that we love. Have you added the cost of the business lost by not having Revit usable on a Mac? Especially in other markets, like Europe? Perhaps you are missing a trick? Are you actually losing more money overall?
Sería de mucha utilidad que pudieran desarrollar una versión nativa de Revit para MacOs. Como Arquitecto profesional mi flujo de trabajo mejoraría significativamente.
Windows and PCs are inferior machines and have caused countless issues in our company and all companies I've worked in. It surprises me that you'd not prioritize a superior operating system and machine as the foundational platform for Revit, allowing the industry to finally make a switch over to mac products and OSx. Revit is the only software we use that is not mac compatible, and it is worth far more than any additional features you could add to Revit. We are talking about Revit being the gatekeeping for an entire industry of architects who wish to make Mac their main systems for their companies, and Revit is holding this back and therefore we loose thousands of hours to these inferior machines and operating systems... Why???? is it money, charge more for the mac version, I'll pay for it, and I bet everyone else will also. It's worth the time savings and cost savings because my PCs last 1/5 the life of my Macs, and the time saved from working on an operating system and machine that just get us and just work, that time is priceless. These workarounds are not smooth as they demand two operating systems to work on the computer at the same time, along with an intense software like Revit or Enscape. The bootcamp is not a solution because we're still using windows, which is windows......please just name a price and do it. The industry will thank you.
I am an architect, and I fully support the development of Revit for macOS. The main reason is that Apple’s hardware and software ecosystem—especially since the transition to ARM-based M-series chips—offers exceptional performance and efficiency compared to traditional Intel and AMD architectures. These chips stand out for their low power consumption, high optimization, and remarkable stability, resulting in machines that are silent, cool, and extremely power-efficient.
In addition, Apple’s hardware—display, trackpad, internal integration, and overall build quality—combined with its software ecosystem, provides a smooth and reliable workflow. I currently use a MacBook Air M4, and although I must rely on Parallels to run Revit 2024, the performance is surprisingly good: comparable to my colleagues’ Windows machines, even when handling projects with high LOD models, with no overheating, no fan noise, and excellent battery life.
If Revit performs so well even under emulation, the potential of a native Revit version for macOS would be tremendous. The market is already beginning to move toward ARM architecture, and as the leading BIM software, Revit should be at the forefront of this transition. I understand that developing a native version presents challenges and costs, but as a user, I see enormous potential. Other industries—such as audiovisual production, music, graphic design, and software development—have already embraced Apple’s technologies, generating major advances and delivering outstanding user experiences.
@mhiserZFHXS is right. Mac users are a minority that Autodesk doesn't care about. That is why I am switching over to Rhino / Visualarq. Perpetual license, solid BIM inside Rhino 3d. I have explored it for the last 3 months and is quite happy with it. It also has Grasshopper, so it is very customizable.
Let's be real here, in 2026 REVIT doesn't need any new features. What it does need to do however is support ARM. It would only benefit AutoDesk to pause development of REVIT (with the exception of bugs and stability) and rewrite it for ARM and x86. It will be built with a modern codebase that will allow it to scale well into the next couple of decades but will also allow all those studios out there to be mobile with REVIT on their ARM based windows laptops.
This will then also allow them to bring it to the Mac as well, allowing it to be run on x86 and ARM, and be cross platform. It'll run on big desktops and laptops. Spend the 4-5 years and rewrite REVIT and by 2030 can start a new decade with a very powerful app that's going to be more stable and more powerful than it currently is.
By not supporting ARM they are shrinking their user base as most consumer and low-pro level windows laptops are ARM now. If Graphisoft can do it with ArchiCAD there's zero reason AutoDesk can't also do it. I feel like AutoDesk are looking at the present instead of the future.
don't ask Autodesk for a native Revit for Mac OS, as rewriting such a program from scratch is very difficult, and the company is dependent on third-party companies that create add-ons and plug-ins for Revit. However, the best solution would be an ARM version of Revit—it would significantly speed up performance on Parallels.
I've been using AutoCAD for 27 years, including during college. I started with ACAD 12 and continue to use it today, both personally and among my 19 architect/interior designer employees. I believe I am experienced enough to request Autodesk to develop Revit for Mac. I'm not sure if you see these thousands of comments, but please reconsider.
Revit is an essential tool for many jobs, including young architects as myself. While Bootcamp was a free alternative to use it on mac before, that is no longer a possibility, meaning we have to pay additional fees on top of your already expensives ones. As a student, freelancer or someone lauching their company, those fee add up really fast - and paying yourself becomes increasingly difficult. If creating a native Mac version is to expensive, you should partner with virtualization services and offer discounted licences or price offers. It is also a well-known fact that virtualization often doesn't work as well/fast as the native service, so I feel that would be a reasonable solution. Thank you
