Rosetta Won't Support x86 Virtualization Apps Running Windows

[KPOM]

Citation please.

Rosetta 2 lacks support for x86 virtualization, Boot Camp not an Apple Silicon option [u] | AppleInsider

Mac users who rely on Windows virtualization software might be left in the lurch when Apple transitions to its own custom ARM processors later this year, as the company's Rosetta Intel-to-ARM translator does not support virtual machine apps.

appleinsider.com

 

[Finn824]

Time to dig out that old copy of Connectix Virtual PC.

WOW! How painful was that. Probably run as slow as it did on PowerMacs or G3s. Apple doesn't care about enterprise customers. I can't wait to see Tim Cook jumping onto the stage wearing Apple shoes powered by apple Silicon.....and look you can design your own personal shoe emoji!

 

[PortoMavericks]

I'm wondering, what if Apple fails?

Let's speculate ladies and gentlemen.

 

[mrmcbee]

Interesting. https://www.neowin.net/news/referen...pport-for-64-bit-intel-apps-spotted-on-github

 

[TiggrToo]

Rosetta 2 lacks support for x86 virtualization, Boot Camp not an Apple Silicon option [u] | AppleInsider

Mac users who rely on Windows virtualization software might be left in the lurch when Apple transitions to its own custom ARM processors later this year, as the company's Rosetta Intel-to-ARM translator does not support virtual machine apps.

appleinsider.com

That's Apple Insider's take. Not seeing anywhere inside the documents referenced that this is a fact.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you a liar or anything, but I'd like to see exactly what Apple have actually said is all.

 

[aristobrat]

Just because Rosetta doesn't support VM software doesn't mean that software makers can't create a native, Apple silicon-based virtualization solution. In other words, update Parallels to work natively and not require a Rosetta translation layer.

I agree... I think there will be a big market for a product like that, although it would be doing emulation vs virtualization since the underlying architecture is different.

 

[sfwalter]

Yep, Boot Camp is dead. They are going to lose A LOT of customers.

Are they really? This is a serious question. I didn't realize it was used much. Only use case I thought was gamers and don't gamers want a big custom made Windows box anways?

 

[aid]

That is not 'cagey' . That looks like a 'bot' posting the same canned message in some "make money fast" scheme. Every question with the same answer isn't 'cagey'. More likely means no info at all. A later question asks if Parallels will virtualize an x86 OS leveraging Rosetta in some way. The answer to that is no ( Apple's docs say as much. Rosetta "2" doesn't do virtualization at all. Or kernel extensions. Don't have those in "emulation x86" not sure how doing virtualization; no instruction to invoke and no way of getting to the kernel level. ) .

I don't think Parallel on Apple Silicon is a scam but there is about zero information there that present know anything at all about what the questions are about.

That's pretty offensive to the Parallels team.

Apple showed in the Keynote that Parallels virtualises (i.e. runs a virtual machine of the same CPU type as the host machine) a guest operating system on an Apple Silicon Mac – exactly as Parallels does today on our Intel Macs.

People would very much like Parallels to extend their product to not just perform virtualisation, but also perform emulation of x86/x64 processors to permit traditional Windows intel builds (and other x64 OSes) to run on the new Macs. That is a seriously difficult and complex change – one that they may or may not be developing.

Right now, as per pretty much every company on the planet, Parallels are only confirming what their product does today. That's just fine.

They are teasing us a little with "look forward to sharing more information" – they may or may not be adding emulation. Let's just wait and see. There are four to six months until anyone will own an Apple Silicon Mac – there is plenty of time for further updates from Parallels before anyone gets to run their software on their own machine. (i.e. Not including the dev boxes for which Apple retains ownership.)

 

[damienbutt]

Has anyone wondered what this might mean for Thunderbolt and also eGPU’s? Wasn’t Thunderbolt developed with Intel?

 

[D.T.]

A few sources have been discussing the possible inclusion of X86 instructions in the SoC package, for "hardware assisted" virtualization for Winders™

I am wondering if Microsoft will continue to support Visual Studio for the Mac.

I'd think this would motivate them to maintain focus on it / continue with improvements. There's a ton of developers using Macs, and MS wants to push their tech stack (that generates significant revenue on the services). I'm also running into a number of scenarios where the client wants a web / API on MS, but still wants a native iOS app (these are mostly enterprise type apps), so that means I'm often in Parallels/VS/MS-SQL/SSMS __and__ XCode (and other MacOS native tools).

Honestly, I've moved my other "non Mac" development services to Docker, offsite cloud services, etc., I'm more or less at the point where my VM need is just VS.

It’s not VMware’s core business. Not by a long shot. It’s a tiny market for them, and they will surely abandon it. They almost did abandon the Mac once already.

Totally agree, and if anything, this would be a moment for Parallels to take over the whole [commercial] MacOS Windows VM market, you know, technical limitations notwithstanding

 

[cgsnipinva]

Well...there you go! No Parallels support unless Parallels finds a way to create a native Apple Silicon-based app/ARM-based app that can then virtualize x86-64.

So, it looks like Windows support is officially going the way of the dodo folks! Be prepared for this if you are thinking about jumping into the Apple Silicon-based platform when these laptops and desktops roll out at years end!

It is possible - however, let's see how this plays out. The fact MS is already porting their full office suite to Apple's platform, and you can still use office 365 through the browser in the new platform --- Parallels could do the same. it seems Apple is trying to make this as easy as possible for third party vendors to transition. I would think that Microsoft is particularly interested in this move as they have demonstrated the interest to do so but haven't been successful.

Apple looks like they have put a few years of effort into this before making the decision to migrate so Microsoft might be willing to support in order to learn.

 

[theluggage]

But this won’t happen. Not with any full complete comparable version. For all the arm talk I’ve not seen any major software maker make an arm version that is remotely on par with the real thing. It’s mostly toy like apps.

Well, you wouldn't have seen that because developers don't release software for hardware that doesn't exist - and to date the only "pc class" ARM hardware that end users can easily buy is the Surface Pro X - a not-very-powerful 2-in-1 currently being promoted by Microsoft in a very lukewarm way. The fact that a locked-down phone, with pitiful amounts of RAM, slow storage and limited I/O might suck at Pro Tools is nothing to do with the ARM ISA. Toy computers get toy apps.

The market for ARM-native software for laptops and desktops has only existed since Monday. When they do launch products, there will probably be more ARM Macs than Surface Pro Xs within a few weeks.

Or did you think Adobe were ever going to get full Creative Suite running on the iPad Pro (max 6GB RAM, one USB-C port, very limited multi-display support, integrated GPU only, a locked-down OS which doesn't allow plug-ins) without inside information telling them that ARM Macs were likely? Now it looks like ARM-based MBP and iMac equivalents are coming in the next year or two, which is a game-changer.

Meanwhile, if you look to the server market, pretty much all the major open-source apps are on ARM. Or are Apache, Python, Node.JS, Postgresql, the whole gcc compiler ecosystem etc. toy apps?

 

[cgsnipinva]

Microsoft already has an ARM version of Windows 10. It's used on the Surface Pro X. It sucks. Very little apps available for it. You can't run x86_64 apps on ARM based Windows.

Which is why I think they will be interested in supporting Apple in their efforts. Keep in mind -- MS just ported Windows to a stock ARM processor. Apple's chips are more than just a custom ARM core(s). They have developed other aspects to complete a robust SoC architecture. If Apple is successful in this effort - I could see MS and others look to make a similar move.

The problem is that Apple has invested money and time to make this possible - others will have to do the same.
[automerge]1593006429[/automerge]

Hmm a pain that I can't run Parallels - as I need Windows for work..

I assume I could boot up my work Windows laptop and use MS Remote Desktop from my Mac to access - as I assume that would work...

Well MS is porting Office over to Apple's new chips. You can also run Office 365 through the browser as well. My company is a Windows based company and when I work at home I am on my Mac running native office and teams and getting into Office 365 for all my sharepoint and one drive stuff. I don't see me not being able to do this under the new version of MacOS on Apple's chips.

 

[chrfr]

VMware Fusion has always been better for serious work than Parallels, so the announcement about the VMware Tech Preview with support for MacOS 11.0 Big Sur beta that's coming in early July is very encouraging. I suspect Parallels is further along in their development than VMware (probably smaller, more agile team).

The tech preview will still only work on Intel Macs.

 

[Emre Ugrasiz]

The question is; would you give up from the Bootcamp, for 36 hours battery life with nice performance laptop?
I guess I would not.

Or do you even care how much electricity your desktop rig is consuming? Don't care either. So this enormous gain on processing power should mean something. A price cut %30 on all computers? Don't think so. Xeon graded performance on a laptop computer? Don't need it. Energy saving monster desktop rig? Meh.

Flexibility is everything. Deep down, I want Apple to pull of this. Though still doubt that Intel will accept this fact. They will be more aggressive about new chip technologies. AMD? Same. If they all improve their technologies, it doesn't make sense to have an Apple isolated environment anymore.

We are at that point, most of professionals and devs use their mac to access both environments. It might change into using their windows mainships to access both environments Then we will need another Steve Jobs.

 

[chrfr]

VMware used to offer emulation (I still have a copy of VMware fusion 2 from the PPC days)

No they didn’t. Fusion has only ever run on Intel.

 

[arkmannj]

truthfully I think Apple is just defining their target audience. And while I (and many MacRumors user) use many platforms on o e machine either for development or games, I’m sure I am in the minority. Most average users are unlikely to notice much of a difference in terms of what they can do.

the question for devs/enthusiasts/gamers will but what they want to do.

* for me I game on console so that’s not a big concern.
* But app/web development will be more cumbersome either doing a cloud VM (Azure/AWS/etc) or using RDP into machines on my local network.

I’ll likely wait this out a few years before making a final decision of what to do.

all that said, if my wife needs a new machine, an ARM mac will be in her future.

 

[theluggage]

Has anyone wondered what this might mean for Thunderbolt and also eGPU’s? Wasn’t Thunderbolt developed with Intel?

The Thunderbolt 3 specs are now part of USB4, and USB4 20/40Gbps devices are expected on the same sort of timescale as the first true ARM-based Macs.

The only question is whether Apple will cross Intel's palm with silver so that they can call the ports "Thunderbolt" (Intel said that "thunderbolt" would be a certification/validation process in the future).

 

[cgsnipinva]

But closing the door to interoperativity when you have a small market share is a myopic and deluded view of what a tenuous grip you have on a market you don't own. For the average person, macs don't exist. For the average mac user, Windows exists as a fuzz at the edge of their vision. You can only get by celebrating your minority status as long as the majority acknowledges you exist. Microsoft, aside form the drain on development time, wouldn't miss Apple if they pulled a Pixar, and totally dropped hardware. The macOS just isn't much competition to Windows. Even after the Vista, and Win8 debacles, masses of users did not flock to the macOS. I hope that virtualization does come back, and Bootcamp reappears. They need to support all users, and all the many ways people use their products. IMO...

Cheers...

10-15 years a go when Microsoft was Windows centric - I would agree with this post. But MS is opening its applications to multiple platforms. Hell they even made SQL server available on Linux. Add to that - that Microsoft and I bet other technology companies will want to do this. However, that will depend if Apple makes this work.

if Apple can demonstrate that desktops and laptops can run full blown versions of software on an ARM based architecture - other industry players will follow because there are advantages to doing so. Hell - the same day Apple announced their Apple Silicon - Japan announced the worlds faster super computer - built on ARM. If you take a step back for a moment and look at what Apple is doing from an industry and technology perspective -- they are opening up a standard hardware platform that can span from mobile devices, to laptops/desktops, servers, and super computers in a way that the x86/x64 architecture cannot. That is significant. Vey significant.

Instead of Mac being pushed further to the margins - this could be - not guaranteed - but could make Apple and the MacOS/iOS/iPadOS plaftorm a leader in moving to a new standard platform. That could position Apple in the center of this paradigm shift - not the edge of it.
[automerge]1593006973[/automerge]

You are confusing "iPad version" and "ARM version". It's no problem at all to create an ARM version that looks and works exactly like the Intel version, as long as it runs on a Mac and not an iPad.

This poster is also commingling ARM with Apple's chips. The cores in Apple's chips are based on ARM but there are other components added into it bringing more power and capability. There is no technical reason you could not port full versions of applications to Apple's chips with all the features.

 

[57004]

There are (granted, almost solely indie-Mac-developer) companies still distributing universal PPC/x86 bundles. I would guess at least 3-4 years for larger companies, though.

I wonder if someone will make a 5-fold universal binary 32/64 PPC, 32/64 Intel and 64 ARM (assuming ARM will be 64 only which I think is a reasonable assumption). Would be fun just for the sake of it.

 

[cmaier]

I think Apple will still launch Macs with Intel CPU in 2027

It’s nice to have unobtainable goals, but perhaps you should shoot for something like world peace or a cure for COVID.

 

[57004]

A few sources have been discussing the possible inclusion of X86 instructions in the SoC package, for "hardware assisted" virtualization for Winders™

I doubt this. If they were considering this, they would not even have bothered to develop Rosetta 2, after all this would perform far better.

And Visual Studio for Mac isn't the 'real' visual studio, it's a rebranded Xamarin Studio. I'm sure they'll keep supporting that but it's not really Visual Studio. VS Code will obviously continue to run without huge changes because it's Javascript based.

 

[cardfan]

Well, you wouldn't have seen that because developers don't release software for hardware that doesn't exist - and to date the only "pc class" ARM hardware that end users can easily buy is the Surface Pro X - a not-very-powerful 2-in-1 currently being promoted by Microsoft in a very lukewarm way. The fact that a locked-down phone, with pitiful amounts of RAM, slow storage and limited I/O might suck at Pro Tools is nothing to do with the ARM ISA. Toy computers get toy apps.

The market for ARM-native software for laptops and desktops has only existed since Monday. When they do launch products, there will probably be more ARM Macs than Surface Pro Xs within a few weeks.

Or did you think Adobe were ever going to get full Creative Suite running on the iPad Pro (max 6GB RAM, one USB-C port, very limited multi-display support, integrated GPU only, a locked-down OS which doesn't allow plug-ins) without inside information telling them that ARM Macs were likely? Now it looks like ARM-based MBP and iMac equivalents are coming in the next year or two, which is a game-changer.

Meanwhile, if you look to the server market, pretty much all the major open-source apps are on ARM. Or are Apache, Python, Node.JS, Postgresql, the whole gcc compiler ecosystem etc. toy apps?

Yep. Toy apps. You didn’t say anything otherwise.

 

[cmaier]

I really hope we see the rise of some form of x86 PCIe accelerator cards for Mac Pros for virtualisation purposes (maybe thunderbolt based versions for non Mac Pros) so that we can still continue to run x86 virtual machines at full speed and have the best of both worlds.

The reality for me is that while I do use an x86 machine for business critical work almost every day, the software I use is not exactly high performance (payroll/accounting software) and I likely would barely notice a difference in performance from running in a virtual machine on my 2012 x86 Mac Pro compared to one on a 2021 Arm Based Mac Pro.

The thing that would make more of a difference to me at this point is if Apple brought back things like Target Display Mode so that I could easily run a Windows PC through my Apple display. Without that feature, it blocks me out of being able to buy any of their iMacs or Apple displays (until a compatible KVM is released).

I remember using a card like that on a mac in a research lab in the early 1990’s. It was...wacky. Trying to remember the weird keyboard combination that switched between machines...
[automerge]1593007414[/automerge]

Wonder if Apple will pass on any cost savings, isn't that one reason they say for moving to Arm?

Who is “they?”

 

[canyonblue737]

I know very little about virtualization but doesn’t this just mean that Parallels or VMWare simply need to create an ARM version of their emulator since Rosetta can’t run their current emulator? Is there a technical reason they wouldn’t be able to do so? You have to believe if you can make an ARM emulator of X86 that the two big names in virtualization are likely to do so and fairly quickly.

Bottom line is I don’t think this means that ARM Macs are destined to not run Windows, it just means Boot Camp is dead and we have to wait for new versions of virtualization software to be made for ARM to run Windows in a Mac OS 11 “window”.

Right?