It's been long enough now that it really is time to change out those workloads.Īnd given resource constraints, it makes a ton more sense to work on Windows 11 support on ARM than Mac on Intel. It was more important years ago than recently, though I know people were using it to keep Mojave around rather than upgrading apps. With esxi dropping the tool development effort, they really don't have much of an option. Seriously, I can't blame the Fusion team for it. You'll have to use second-hand Intel Macs in the not-too-distant future to run old macOS versions.ĭecisions are going to have to be made, and it may involve having to depart from those old software versions and move on.to something all three of them -). As Apple phases out support of Intel Macs, it's going to become increasingly difficult to run those older macOS versions. The real pain point is for those users that want to run versions of macOS that only run on Intel Macs. They run a lot faster than those versions that need Intel CPU emulation. That means that Monterey and later run native Apple Silicon/ARM versions and not Intel versions under emulation. UTM is using Apple's high level virtualization platform for Monterey and later macOS versions. The experience running macOS as a VM on Apple Silicon is dramatically different than with Intel Macs. To me, it's a non-issue because I can virtualize macOS on Apple Silicon for free with the same feature sets as Parallels provides by using UTM. It is unclear if VMware will add support for virtualizing macOS on Apple Silicon like Parallels does. Although, that could just be via Anka or something else nowadays.Īnd to date Fusion does not support any macOS virtualization on Apple Silicon. Apple only last week upgraded the Mac Pro to Apple Silicon, and the 7,1 Mac Pro is still used for virtualization at schools and other enterprise markets. Unless product manager) can convince them otherwise and enhance the paravirt support for the next Fusion you have a link to the thread? That seems very unlikely for them to say that they'd entirely stop supporting macOS Guests on specifially Intel. If the current tools work fine in (without switching to the paravirt graphics), then that's probably what you'll get in Sonoma. As an example, the VMware Tools are developed by the same team that builds them for all of VMware's products, and the macOS tools development has stopped. It's unclear how much that applies to Fusion but I would not hold out hope for enhancements that will make Sonoma run "better" on Intel Macs. Vmware has also stated that they aren't going to support future macOS versions for ESXi. They have deprecated support for macOS in ESXi. Note however that support for macOS virtualization has been dwindling within VMware. I'd wait for that to really shake out Sonoma, and then report any findings through that. We hear rumors that we might see one in the not-too-distant future. This is the time of year that VMware tends to release "tech previews" or as we know it "public betas" of the next Fusion release. Personally, I'd run any beta of Sonoma on Apple Silicon Macs using UTM (which uses Apple's high level virtualization framework). I'd give VMware a little time to shake things out, or continue to run with non-accelerated graphics. I would suspect that Sonoma changes something that the 3D support Fusion provides doesn't know about. Apple isn't terribly forthcoming about under-the-hood changes. Given that Sonoma is hot off the presses, I wouldn't be surprised if things didn't work with a Sonoma guest in the current Fusion releases. One question I have is what Mac are you using with Fusion 13? I assume you're enabling the 3d graphics support by editing the.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |