TFA does not contain the word "copy", but copy-paste (shared clipboard) support stands out strongly to me as being "different" in Apple Silicon virtualization at this time.
TFA does mention the word "clipboard", but the containing sentence, while perhaps technically correct, seems a bit misleading, as follows: "As implemented in macOS (both as guest and host), there are also extensions to support keyboard and pointing devices, a shared clipboard, and high-performance graphics with Metal and GPU support." As I understand it, even if those extensions "exist", what good are they if they are not adopted?:
- If you virtualize macOS within macOS on Apple Silicon using UTM, you cannot copy paste between systems reliably (bidirectional shared clipboard is very, very fragile; "can" work a little but is essentially fully broken/unreliable).
- If you virtualize macOS within macOS on Apple Silicon using Parallels (often considered a best-choice solution), you cannot copy paste between systems at all (bidirectional shared clipboard is an explicit non-feature at this time).
Thus, if you want bidirectional clipboard, on a macOS host, you'll have to run a *nix (seems to work) or maybe Win (I haven't tried) guest OS.
I would have tried VMWare Fusion (free for personal use), but after jumping through all the signup and download navigation hoops, I couldn't even get the download link to un-gray itself out for me. Is bidirectional macOS to macOS clipboard implemented there? IDK and I cannot tell.
I use VMWare Fusion, (version 13.6.4 because 25H2 has a bad scrolling bug that makes it unusable for me) and it does implement bi-directional copy/paste, and you can also drag files in and out of the VM (there's a few tricks required to make it work sometimes) but I've only tested this for Windows 10 and Linux as a guest, not macOS as a guest.
Re: Downloading, I have the same issue. What I do is note the note the SHA2 for the file on the official download site, then find a copy somewhere else on the internet [0], and verify the SHA2 of that file matches the one on the Broadcom web site.
I used to run a macos vm under proxmox, and I just used screen sharing to remote in from my apple desktop. Copy/paste of even complicated stuff works fine between the apple desktop and the vm desktop. Also drag and drop files, etc
What a lovely technical article for those of us that haven't followed it, thanks! I was thinking this might be about how Parallels does not have copy-and-paste for M1-on-M1 macOS-on-macOS virtualization, which is definitely "thinking different" compared to all other desktop virtualization that I have encountered.
TLDR: macOS virtualization is as fast as native due to hypervisor support, with free but limited driver support thanks to virtio. MacOS guests are limited to 2 at a time, and cannot use iCloud services or log in to the App Store.
Also FYI:
- launch times are fast enough for serverless
- you can restore snapshots for macOS guests but not for Linux
- Apple's open-source container support is built on Virtualization, making it a much more secure option than Docker
What's needs investigating is access to the secure enclave. You can login with an apple ID and use enclave API's; it's not clear if this is emulated or handled using the host enclave with a different scope - i.e., if this presents any security issues. To be conservative, one might avoid logging in using an Apple ID with sensitive information in an automated/CI context.
For me the key point was how the frog is slowly being boiled and macOS is being converted slowly to ios / iPadOS with increasing restrictions. Case in point, now system developers cannot build and sell custom virtualisation solutions for Macs:
> For vendors like VMware and Parallels ... there’s no scope for either of them to engineer better or faster graphics support, as that’s determined by features provided in both guest and host operating systems, via Virtio or an equivalent. That puts Apple in charge of what hardware and features are supported by virtualisation on Apple silicon.
So if I wanted to run Windows ARM on an Apple Silicon Mac, what's the best option(s) that make full use of the hypervisor? I'm aware of UTM [0] but the second paragraph of the article makes it seem like UTM is a software emulator (that doesn't take advantage of the hypervisor?)
I need to run a few utilities that only work on Windows and those work fine on Windows for ARM under UTM. These utilities are built for Intel but run fine - Windows for ARM translates the code on the fly. It has a translation layer called "Prism."
Parallels and VMware still do implement their own graphics virtualisation (among other things) for Windows and Linux guests on Apple silicon, and in my experience Parallels still works better than the alternatives for Windows.
Howard Oakley is a highly respected technical writer. I subscribe to his site's RSS because of the fine writing which has had a consistent voice since well before GPT was released.
It's not about the virtualization hardware, it's about interfacing with the rest of the hardware. The article is about why Apple decided to use Virtio when they weren't doing that before the ARM transition.
There's more to the article than just the article. A technical blog elicits discussion and conversation in the comments. I never get why people totally miss such value add.
Seems that the comments for every article posted to HN these days has complaints about AI.
For people who feel compelled to make such complaints - can you at least include a specific example or two from the article that you feel are "slop"? And preferably something more substantive than calling out the use of em dash.
AI slop is definitely a thing, but it is a logical fallacy to assume that every article written with the help of AI is slop. And this article didn't feel like AI slop to me, so I'm curious to know why you think it is.
Anti-AI slop is also very much a thing. Let's try to avoid posting that as well.
People love to feel like they're the clever ones in the know who see the "real" world that others miss. It's the same underlying motivator behind conspiracy theorists. It's nice that you see what's really happening, which clearly makes you better than all the others who stumble around blindly. They're not special like you are.
I read "AI slop from the looks of it" in the same tone of voice as "that's what they want you to believe".
TFA does not contain the word "copy", but copy-paste (shared clipboard) support stands out strongly to me as being "different" in Apple Silicon virtualization at this time.
TFA does mention the word "clipboard", but the containing sentence, while perhaps technically correct, seems a bit misleading, as follows: "As implemented in macOS (both as guest and host), there are also extensions to support keyboard and pointing devices, a shared clipboard, and high-performance graphics with Metal and GPU support." As I understand it, even if those extensions "exist", what good are they if they are not adopted?:
- If you virtualize macOS within macOS on Apple Silicon using UTM, you cannot copy paste between systems reliably (bidirectional shared clipboard is very, very fragile; "can" work a little but is essentially fully broken/unreliable).
- If you virtualize macOS within macOS on Apple Silicon using Parallels (often considered a best-choice solution), you cannot copy paste between systems at all (bidirectional shared clipboard is an explicit non-feature at this time).
Thus, if you want bidirectional clipboard, on a macOS host, you'll have to run a *nix (seems to work) or maybe Win (I haven't tried) guest OS.
I would have tried VMWare Fusion (free for personal use), but after jumping through all the signup and download navigation hoops, I couldn't even get the download link to un-gray itself out for me. Is bidirectional macOS to macOS clipboard implemented there? IDK and I cannot tell.
I use VMWare Fusion, (version 13.6.4 because 25H2 has a bad scrolling bug that makes it unusable for me) and it does implement bi-directional copy/paste, and you can also drag files in and out of the VM (there's a few tricks required to make it work sometimes) but I've only tested this for Windows 10 and Linux as a guest, not macOS as a guest.
Re: Downloading, I have the same issue. What I do is note the note the SHA2 for the file on the official download site, then find a copy somewhere else on the internet [0], and verify the SHA2 of that file matches the one on the Broadcom web site.
Fusion feels very much like it's on life support.
0. For example, https://www.techspot.com/downloads/2755-vmware-fusion-mac.ht...
The writing was on the wall with Fusion when they made it free. It's unfortunate.
Fusion has no graphics support. Parallels is way better if you need any GPU, which you do, since everything uses that these days.
Not the same thing, but...
I used to run a macos vm under proxmox, and I just used screen sharing to remote in from my apple desktop. Copy/paste of even complicated stuff works fine between the apple desktop and the vm desktop. Also drag and drop files, etc
I have copy paste working bi directional on Parallels
What a lovely technical article for those of us that haven't followed it, thanks! I was thinking this might be about how Parallels does not have copy-and-paste for M1-on-M1 macOS-on-macOS virtualization, which is definitely "thinking different" compared to all other desktop virtualization that I have encountered.
TLDR: macOS virtualization is as fast as native due to hypervisor support, with free but limited driver support thanks to virtio. MacOS guests are limited to 2 at a time, and cannot use iCloud services or log in to the App Store.
Also FYI:
- launch times are fast enough for serverless
- you can restore snapshots for macOS guests but not for Linux
- Apple's open-source container support is built on Virtualization, making it a much more secure option than Docker
What's needs investigating is access to the secure enclave. You can login with an apple ID and use enclave API's; it's not clear if this is emulated or handled using the host enclave with a different scope - i.e., if this presents any security issues. To be conservative, one might avoid logging in using an Apple ID with sensitive information in an automated/CI context.
For me the key point was how the frog is slowly being boiled and macOS is being converted slowly to ios / iPadOS with increasing restrictions. Case in point, now system developers cannot build and sell custom virtualisation solutions for Macs:
> For vendors like VMware and Parallels ... there’s no scope for either of them to engineer better or faster graphics support, as that’s determined by features provided in both guest and host operating systems, via Virtio or an equivalent. That puts Apple in charge of what hardware and features are supported by virtualisation on Apple silicon.
So if I wanted to run Windows ARM on an Apple Silicon Mac, what's the best option(s) that make full use of the hypervisor? I'm aware of UTM [0] but the second paragraph of the article makes it seem like UTM is a software emulator (that doesn't take advantage of the hypervisor?)
0. https://mac.getutm.app
Running Windows under UTM on macOS was (and might still be) the fastest way to run Windows on ARM.
I need to run a few utilities that only work on Windows and those work fine on Windows for ARM under UTM. These utilities are built for Intel but run fine - Windows for ARM translates the code on the fly. It has a translation layer called "Prism."
Parallels and VMware still do implement their own graphics virtualisation (among other things) for Windows and Linux guests on Apple silicon, and in my experience Parallels still works better than the alternatives for Windows.
UTM does both. hypervisor for ARM, qemu for other archs
UTM can do both depending on how you configure it.
No mention of http://tart.run? I use parallels for windows and Ubuntu, but for macOS, tart has been great!
[flagged]
Howard Oakley is a highly respected technical writer. I subscribe to his site's RSS because of the fine writing which has had a consistent voice since well before GPT was released.
Can you explain from what exactly "Virtualisation ... is different" then?
I'm not GP, but I assumed it was a play on Apple's "Think different" marketing mantra
"Every single hardware device in an Apple silicon chip is different from its equivalent (if there is one) in Intel Macs"
There are no significant differences in virtualization hardware between Intels and ARMs, and certainly none described in that article.
It's not about the virtualization hardware, it's about interfacing with the rest of the hardware. The article is about why Apple decided to use Virtio when they weren't doing that before the ARM transition.
You don't know much about Mac bloggers then.
Yeah, I'm not part of the cult.
This is the most angry comment thread I've ever seen about a hypervisor.
Of the 20+ articles I read about hypervisors in my life this one has the least actual information and the most clickbait title.
There's more to the article than just the article. A technical blog elicits discussion and conversation in the comments. I never get why people totally miss such value add.
Seems that the comments for every article posted to HN these days has complaints about AI.
For people who feel compelled to make such complaints - can you at least include a specific example or two from the article that you feel are "slop"? And preferably something more substantive than calling out the use of em dash.
AI slop is definitely a thing, but it is a logical fallacy to assume that every article written with the help of AI is slop. And this article didn't feel like AI slop to me, so I'm curious to know why you think it is.
Anti-AI slop is also very much a thing. Let's try to avoid posting that as well.
People love to feel like they're the clever ones in the know who see the "real" world that others miss. It's the same underlying motivator behind conspiracy theorists. It's nice that you see what's really happening, which clearly makes you better than all the others who stumble around blindly. They're not special like you are.
I read "AI slop from the looks of it" in the same tone of voice as "that's what they want you to believe".
Yeah, it tends to be like "the article title has 'is' in the title, it's slop"
This article may not be AI, but it is slop from the technical perspective.
I think Howard is one of the people I would be most surprised by if he was using AI. He just writes this way and has been doing so for years.