Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
VMware Fusion 12 Announced With Support for macOS Big Sur, eGPUs, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don’t remember that. I only remember Virtual PC on OS 9. I had to use it for Windows 98 because it was the only way I could use my external CDRW drive at the time. The Mac OS driver didn’t support packet writing.
We do know what emulation of X86 on Arm looks like.
There are server class ARM processors that definitely beat what Apple will have to offer.
Ampere and others.
SO we do know that x86 emulation will be horrible.
Lastly people assume that the use for VMware or Parallels is Windows.
On the contrary I use VMware and it isn't for windows I run CentOS and RedHat for development.
My company has bought or will buy their last Macs.
We won't buy a Mac that cannot run x86 CentOS/RedHat.
Maybe. If its anything like 11.5, there are some edits to the .vmx file needed. You can search the webs for instructions on the process. I had Catalina running in a VMWare Fusion 11.5 instance on a 2012 Mac Pro. Only thing I needed to do physically on the machine was replace the graphics card, which I did last year when I upgraded to Mojave.
And you ascertained thatmissed the point just how? I made a simple statement clarifying that Rosetta was not a hypervisor because the claim was made that since Rosetta wasn’t going to support x86 for hypervisors that that’s why x86 virtualization is not likely to happen.
The truth is that it’s got nothing to do with Rosetta and everything to do with the platform. Rosetta is a JIT Binary translator than was neither designed for, nor expected to be used by a hypervisor.
Virtualization is something that happens at a much lower level than Rosetta is expected to be a part of.
I didn’t. Someone else did.
I really don't see what a product that's optimized for many cores but mediocre single-threaded perf says about a product that's optimized for far fewer cores but fantastic single-threaded perf. They're both ARM, and both interesting designs, and that's about where the similarities end.
Nah. We already know Parallels will virtualize Linux on ARM since Apple demo'd it at WWDC. So it isn't as interesting a discussion to be had.
Both RHEL and CentOS exist for ARM64. Why virtualize the x86 version?
It would be great if MS revived it to create an Windows for Mac product that ran on ARM; but given they never did that for x86, I doubt they'd suddenly decide that it was worth the effort to develop an Apple specific ARM implementation.
More intriguing, given the iPad's increased processing power they could create a "Surface for the iPad" app that ran the ARM version of Windows. Of course, getting on the APP Store would require Apple to relax some rules, but I thinl MS would certainly be able to cut a deal with Apple.
The only thing that sucks about VMWare's announcement is the timing. I need to run PowerBI and my subscription ran out earlier this month so I had to buy another year, although 2 yers was still cheaper than a permanent license, since I would have been 2 versions older by now..
Last edited:
Virtual PC. It was an emulator and while it worked it was painfully slow at times, IIRC. I ran it on a Performa (the All in one educational model) for a while when to write a review for it.
Well, never say never.
I didn't think they'd ever properly modernize their terminal emulator; not only did they, but they made it open-source, too. Or that they'd pivot PowerShell (which arguably was never as successful as they had hoped) into a cross-platform, open source thing. Or make a cross-platform programmer's text editor. Or a Visual Studio for Mac (originally a rebranded MonoDevelop, really, but they've been adding more and more VSWin features).
Having a macOS Hyper-V client that lets you run a Linux or Windows VM so you can test something before you deploy to Azure wouldn't be a terrible fit for their business.
They could, but Windows licensing isn't really their thing any more, and Surface is more of a fun sideshow to make some hardware revenue. I don't see how making a "virtual" Surface fits their portfolio, other than to promote Surface hardware?
You can upgrade for free if you just bought it.
I assume if you're running it on a corporate laptop and using it for your work, that would be commercial use. If you're running it on your home computer and not directly making money from using it, that would be personal use. If you're running on a home computer and using it to boost your skills for work or learn new technologies, also for work, that would still be personal use.
I'm no lawyer, but that's my view.
I used it once to prank a friend into thinking that Microsoft had ported Windows 95 to the Titanium Powerbook. Ran it full screen and it actually performed pretty well.
They seem to be focusing on enterprise solutions for remote access, inventory management as well as a Chrome extension that lets you run Windows Apps w/o an internet connection; along with an OS X VM solution.
My guess, depending on the revenue the home product brings and what happens with renewals and upgrades over the next year, they will go free and sell their tools/ remote desktop software separately; while keeping a paid support option for those that what or need it. Businesses that use it would, like with Fusion, still buy licenses.
II don't think Apple wants to encourage Mac users to use Windows seamlessly, lest they decide to switch completely. They could have built in virtualization long ago, but chose to stick with Bootcamp. My guess that placated those that needed Windows on occasion while not making it easy to see what Windows offers. Win10 isn't bad at all, the real hassle is that the UI's do things differently; so when I pop into Windows I have to remember what key does what and how to navigate since I don't use it on a frequent basis except when I am working on a PowerBI project or have to use a client supplied laptop to access a their network. Personally, I hate the trackpad on Winboxen; though HP's Envy and Pavilion have nice keys.
Spot on. I travel alot and internet access is either non-existent, such as an international flight, slow, or expensive if you buy prepaid plans and use a lot of data. There's nothing like losing a connection in the middle of soemthing to mess up your day. I backup to the cloud but won't use it as my primary storage location, no matter how often Offcie tells me how great it is, becsue I need reliable access to my files.
I have Tmob so I get free data overseas but it is low speed and not always available. Cloud apps are great if you have a reliable high speed connection, but for many people that is not always true.
One can hope. I'd like tp see them go down that path, and price it reasonably.
Yea, I don't see any upside in it for them if they created such an app. People would scream about every little thing they didn't like "It won't run game X (that needs a powerful gaming rig to run well..." and any price above free :One Star. I wouldn't pay over $1 for this ..."
Unfortunately I run Parallels.
Rumor has it Dell is looking to sell their stake in VMWare.
My guess the reality will be "I use the free version unless I absolutley must have something that requires a license" at least for the small shops and sole proprietors.
Yea, I've freaked out a few people who see me running Windows on my MBP when the see it and ask about it and I tell them it's Apple's new WinBookPro.
glad you copies what was known at Apple Silicon time of announcement at WWDC 2020
The real question is:
This is a NEW announcement from VMware and nothing specifically stated regarding emulation or virtualization of x86 except specifically stating kernel extensions on Intel based Macs. Seems that VMware is NOT stating anything about Windows OS x86/64 for a number of reasons, which leads me to presume or guess that a) their waiting for Apple to allow a solution, and or b) Microsoft to allow a solution or alternative.
Apple made their stance and by your quote says virtual machines cannot emítale x86 on Arm but emulation can. All in all that’s not saying we’ll not have Windows x86 emulated to run on Apple Silicon via Paralells or VMware; that’s all we really wish to have. Run Windows use Windows whenever needed on our Apple Macs in the new gen.
so much confusion swapping the two nomenclatures about some say no some saying yes point here and there without real explanation in depth is making this situation worse and potentially hurting future sales stock etc. This really needs to be clarified by experts in the fields with a lengthy explanation article on macrumors. @Mods I know we shouldn’t call you out on threads so please forgive me in asking is this something the team is working on please? Just an inquiry not a complaint.
Am I the only one here excited by the prospect of not having to shell out $49 or $79 annually for a personal license? I have been using Parallels for years and spent the better part of $300-$400 in licenses. Can't wait to stop having to pay for this. Excited to test out VMWare.
It's the sunset of MacOS for x86 and the VM companies know their business model is threatened now. It's just fortunate that Windows 10 isn't a disaster at the moment and productivity is not impacted by switching over provided you're not bought into Apple's application environment and have wisely stuck with cross-platform licenses. Also Linux "just works" easily as much if not more often than MacOS now.
Currently, thanks to fast USB and SSD drives it's trivial to have a bunch of VM's for all three OS's on hand to take ready-to-go productivity environments that can run on a laptop or desktop, running any pre-existing OS, etc without needing to sync folders or shut down between moves. But if/when MacOS goes completely to ARM we will be in the dark ages again for a while until workarounds happen.
Not true. You can virtualise any hardware on any other hardware. It just depends on how the emulator is written. I run a PowerPC Classic Mac on Intel hardware.
Now, you may not get the performance you were aiming for if, for example you emulate a Cray super computer on Intel hardware, but it will work. However, emulating a Z80 CPU running CP/M makes it run like the clappers.
The reason we get such good performance out of the current virtual systems (Parallels, VMware, etc) is that they cheat by handing over Intel microcode to the Intel processor. The problem with virtualising Intel OS on ARM hardware, or vice versa, is that you have to emulate the hardware, and doing that efficiently is hard.
Honestly not terrible idea. Build a budget Windows PC and install Parsec remote desktop. You'll have a decently powerful Windows environment for work or gaming anywhere you have good internet.
I said virtualization while you’re talking about emulation. They are not the same thing.
Will depend on the games, as it isn't directly addressing the GPU/eGPU (I doubt... if it is like Parallels) or using the GPU drivers, but the drivers from Parallels/VMware. I can run Minecraft, for example, in Boot Camp or Parallels, and it seems to do OK. But, more demanding games, I kind of doubt it.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean bu eGPU passthrough, but I doubt it. The VMs (again, if like Parallels) utilize the GPU/eGPU hardware, but through a kind of virtualized system/driver made by Parallels/VMware. I've tried to more directly access my eGPU in Parallels, but have had no luck.
One of the Parallels kb articles says this:
"It is not possible to connect an eGPU device directly to VM, as they are being connected to Mac via PCIe interface which requires VT-d technology support to make virtualization of such connection possible, but VT-d on Mac can't be used for passing an external GPU to a virtual machine."
So, I'm guessing that's more an Apple thing, which means no-one will be able to do it. So, probably same as Parallels.
Yeah, I'm a bit surprised the new Parallels is only OpenGL 3, although the new version and the version I'm running support my eGPU... just not super-directly (see above conversation).
It will be interesting to see some actual speed-tests between Parallels and VMware. I haven't upgraded Parallels yet... and with free, I suppose I'll need to check it out. Not sure if my Windows license would like me trying both?
That said, I've been kind of amazed by Parallels (and it's supposed to be 2x faster for graphics now?). I ran on Boot Camp for all my Autodesk Revit classes, because I didn't want anything to interfere and was concerned about performance. But, after the course, I installed Parallels and pulled my Boot Camp over to a VM. I honestly can't tell the difference in Revit. I notice a bit of difference playing Minecraft, but it is totally playable.
I think it depends on your application. Remember that you're going to be breaking up our resources with a VM. You'll have to assign some CPU cores to macOS, some to the VM. You'll also be dividing your RAM. And, the eGPU/GPU runs through the VM and their drivers (not the AMD drivers).
But, as mentioned above, it works fine for me for Revit and Minecraft. (I also have a Mac mini and the Blackmagic eGPU... did you have as much fun as I did getting Boot Camp going? Maybe it's better now than it was back in early 2019!)
But, the advantage is that you get to run alongside your macOS environment, and you can just backup that VM snapshot, or switch to another one, etc. It's quite handy.... but tradeoffs.
I'm certainly going to give it a try. I hope we see some good benchmark comparisons, though, as I've heard in the past Parallels is faster for many things. Parallels also had better UI and features, IMO, too. I used to use VMware.
Yes, if I go Apple Silicon, that is one option... probably the best one. But, I hate the idea of having to switch between systems, and then different input devices, etc. Screen sharing has always been kind of iffy, too.
However, I didn't know about Parsec, so thanks. I'll have to check into that. It's one thing remotely controlling a server or a machine to fix something... but quite another to be working in some CAD or 3D app. If Parsec really can do that and deliver a great experience (especially on the local network), I think just having a PC somewhere and controlling it (I assume in a window of some kind?) sounds pretty ideal.... ultimately better than Boot Camp or VMs, aside from additional hardware cost.
Thanks, this makes it clearer for me. I appreciate the response. Overall, because of having to share resources, bootcamp in theory provides a better eGPU Windows gaming experience. And no, Bootcamp with an eGPU is not any better than last year, lol. I am stuck on Windows 10 version 1903, constantly fighting any updates that will break Bootcamp. That’s mainly why I was interested in this possibility. Despite the hassle, it really does work great, even for AAA games. For now, I’ve learned to live with it.
I'm genuinely baffled that you expected anything else.
Neither Parallels nor VMware have or ever had an emulation solution in their portfolio. The latter isn't called "EmuWare" for a reason. They don't have the technology, nor the expertise. And an x86 (let alone x64) emulation isn't something you come up with just like that.
Apple has been very clear they won't support a solution to run x86 operating systems, and Microsoft has been very clear that they have no intention to unbundle Windows on Arm from their own Arm-based products.
So, nothing has changed since WWDC 2020, and nothing won't change for at least the foreseeable time. What I quoted is still the status quo. And it was absolutely to be expected to be.
Last edited:
VMware's business has always(?) been about virtualization, though. They may not have the expertise to emulate another architecture, and they might not have much incentive to hire such engineers. They do have plenty of incentive to expand to ARM virtualization.
Hm, I'm not sure what you're asking here.
What we know:
- Windows is predominantly an x86 operating system. Traditionally, almost all Windows apps run on x86 only.
- Windows also runs on ARM, but with some limitations (such as only being licensed to OEMs).
- Windows on ARM also includes an emulator for x86 apps now. So it might not actually matter that VMware has no emulation expertise; VMware would just virtualize Windows (ARM on ARM), and Microsoft would do the rest.
- Apple has shown interest in virtualizing Linux on ARM Macs, but not for virtualizing other systems.
- Are there contractual hurdles, and have Apple, Corel (Parallels), VMware, Microsoft, (Qualcomm?) talked to resolve them at all?
- What is performance like?
Virtualization, when used in this context, is not emulation.
No, that's what virtualization means: you take a physical piece of hardware and make the same piece available virtually, to share resources.