hoakley July 28, 2022 Macs, Technology

Virtualisation on Apple silicon Macs: 6 Support limits

If you want to run virtualised operating systems on an Apple silicon Mac, you can opt for one of the heavyweights such as Parallels Desktop (commercial), VMware Fusion (still not fully released), or UTM (cheap through the App Store). Each has its own limitations, but they’re substantial apps. macOS Monterey includes support for lightweight virtualisation of macOS and Linux guests, and this article explains its current limitations.

Throughout this article, I’ll refer to the version of macOS running on the Mac itself as the host, and the operating system running in the virtual machine (VM) as the guest. Lightweight virtualisation has no support for running Windows at all, even Windows for ARM, but only supports macOS and Linux guests. If you want to run Windows, your current choice is between Parallels Desktop and UTM.

Big Sur

Lightweight virtualisation doesn’t support macOS 11 Big Sur either as a guest or host, except for command-line Linux systems (also supported on Intel Macs), and even those have severe constraints on the devices they have access to.

Monterey

macOS 12 Monterey can host macOS Monterey and later, and command-line Linux systems, but with significant limitations. It also lacks support for GUI Linux guests, as the Virtio ‘Scanout’ Graphics Device required isn’t available to Monterey hosts.

In addition to the limitations listed below for Ventura, Virtio support in Monterey hosts and guests isn’t as complete as in Ventura. Perhaps the most significant shortcoming is the lack of support for folders shared between the host and guest using the Virtio File System Device.

Although Apple’s documentation claims this is supported in macOS 12 and later, to mount shared folders the guest requires support for virtiofs. That’s currently not available in Monterey, so even when that version of macOS is the guest on Ventura, it appears impossible to mount any shared folders without the use of third-party software. Similarly, command-line Linux guests with mount support for virtiofs in the guest appear unable to connect to device support in Monterey hosts.

The only good workaround that I’ve found so far is to enable file sharing on the host, and connect to that using networking support in the guest.

Clipboard support through a Spice Agent Device isn’t supported in Monterey guests or hosts, and is currently awaiting additional features and documentation. In addition, Virtio Multiport Console Devices aren’t implemented for macOS 12 hosts or guests.

Another omission from macOS 12 device support is the trackpad. However, by setting pointing device configuration to include both that and a USB Screen Coordinate Pointing Device, trackpads appear to be fully supported in both macOS 12 and 13.

Rosetta 2 translation of Intel code running in a Linux guest isn’t available from a Monterey host, although Rosetta 2 is available to macOS guests, whether they’re running on macOS 12 or 13 hosts.

One final limitation in Monterey hosts is that they’re unable to start macOS guests with start options, which currently includes starting in Recovery mode. If you want to change security settings or use other features only available in Recovery, that VM must be run from a Ventura host.

Ventura

macOS 13 brings full support for all the documented Virtio devices, including the ‘Scanout’ Graphics Device required by GUI Linux guests. There are, though, two significant omissions remaining in Ventura both as a host and guest.

Apple apparently doesn’t currently intend to support iCloud access from guests, even those that have been granted the entitlement for a Bridged Network Device to interact directly with physical network interfaces on the host. Other network authentication relying on the Secure Enclave of the host also appear to be unsupported.

As I’ve described previously, neither the Virtualization nor the Hypervisor frameworks include AMP support, to allow guests to allocate vCPUs to specific types of core on the host. Instead, all vCPUs are treated as if they were threads running at high QoS. This prevents guests from designating their background tasks to be run on the host’s E cores. Apple hasn’t announced any intention to support that in macOS hosts.

Summary

Lightweight virtualisation on Apple silicon Macs is limited as follows:

Big Sur hosts and guests aren’t supported, except for limited command-line Linux on Big Sur hosts.
Monterey hosts only support limited command-line Linux, and limited Monterey and later guests.
Ventura hosts Monterey guests with the same limitations as Monterey hosts, except that macOS 13 can run the guest in Recovery mode.
Ventura hosts GUI and command-line Linux, and Ventura guests fully, but without iCloud access, or AMP support in the guest.

Of course, these limitations in macOS support don’t mean that third-parties can’t implement substitutes, although in some cases such as iCloud and AMP that appears unlikely, except possibly in commercial products.

Previous articles:
1 How well does it work?
2 How does it work?
3 Configuration, VM and boot
4 Core allocation in VMs
5 Hypervisors and virtualisation
also see Why are Disk Images so slow at writing?

21Comments

Add yours

1

ivanExpert on July 28, 2022 at 10:19 am

Thank you for the detailed report. It’s extremely useful. But, from my perspective, what terrible news that guests will not, and perhaps will never, be able to be signed into iCloud. That’s not a full fledged virtual machine.

As a consultant (and even just as a power user), being able to sign into a client’s Apple ID is a critical part of my workflow, Soemtimes I need to perform, for example, photo deduplication or contacts cleanup for a client without having to coordinate with their schedule for remote access to their own computer. I realize that for security purposes Apple probably prefers it this way, but Apple product owners also have support needs and this impairs them.

I realize other workarounds exist, like signing someone else into a different user on my own computer, but that’s not nearly as convenient as using Parallels linked clones where I can have access to my own user simultaneously, and where if I’m troubleshooting something I can easily have multiple iterations of a virtual machine with different settings. Plus if I’m on my own machine, the nature of “system” keychain entries means then a client’s iCloud Keychain comingles with mine in Keychain Access, which I prefer to not happen for either me or them.

I suppose I may simply keep an Intel Mac running Parallels available as a remote device for the immediate future, which is a nuisance, and laggy, and will one day no longer be viable, but at least it’s an option for now.

Is there any technical or administrative reason why guest VM’s can’t be signed into iCloud accounts? Or why Parallels can’t implement their own hypervisor?

Can Windows ARM guests be signed into iCloud accounts with iCloud software installed? This doesn’t have much benefit to me, but I’m curious if that ability exists while macOS guests can’t.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 2
  
  hoakley on July 28, 2022 at 2:31 pm
  
  Thank you.
  It’s important to distinguish between two classes of virtualisation on Apple silicon: heavyweight like Parallels which use the Hypervisor framework, and lightweight, which is what this article is most concerned about.
  Although I’m not certain whether Parallels on Apple silicon does support iCloud yet, I’m certain that it’s going to come, possibly in the next version with Ventura. VMware unfortunately are a good way behind with Apple silicon support, but if they continue with it, I’m sure they’ll get there too. So for pro use, I’d be very surprised if iCloud and other services reliant on your Apple ID weren’t fully available in a VM.
  Apple’s philosophy behind lightweight virtualisation is to make the process very easy – it doesn’t take much code to produce an app like my Viable – and encourage innovation, particularly among indie developers. For command-based Linux, Docker-like packaged VMs are simple to create, and there’s no reason that every Mac user can’t have their own free lightweight virtualisation of macOS. But that also means putting more limits on what can be used, and currently that appears to exclude anything for which the Secure Enclave and security protection is required.
  Of course there’s no equivalent on Intel Macs, where lightweight virtualisation is confined to command-line Linux. So on Apple silicon, this is a bonus which Apple hopes will lead to some really cool apps.
  I’d love my virtualiser to be able to access iCloud, but it’s no great loss that it doesn’t. It’s still a really simple and free way to run macOS VMs.
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike
  - 3
    
    Ivan Drucker on July 29, 2022 at 8:07 pm
    
    This is an excellent explanation. Thank you. Thus far, Parallels’ implementation of macOS guest machines on Apple silicon seem to contain many of the same limitations that you describe of lightweight VM’s. I don’t know whether they are creating lightweight VM’s as a stopgap proof of concept while we wait for heavyweight full virtualization, but hopefully there will be more to come. I agree with you that being able to spin up a simple Mac VM with minimal code is pretty cool.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 4
      
      hoakley on July 29, 2022 at 10:19 pm
      
      Thank you.
      I suspect that Parallels was involved in implementing some of the Virtio devices in conjunction with Apple, and that Parallels Desktop does use them at present, as it develops its fuller implementation.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
5

Javier Gallardo on July 28, 2022 at 2:30 pm

…”What no one outside Apple knows is where this is all heading, and its impact on macOS itself. It’s certainly a feature worth watching in the evolution of Apple silicon and macOS”… you wrote.
I’m curious about the big effort Apple is making about virtualisation. I thought this was about facilitating programmers and developers use of M chips. I’m quite ignorant about all these technical details (it’s wonderful, though, your ability explaining this; some articles are out of my reach, but your resumes and general approximations are superb).
But I wonder if Apple is working for M chiplets to be accepted as an able system to work in an hyper-converged computer world. Perhaps (sure) machine virtualisation is a big thing in the near future. And the advantage of less consuming energy is asking for ARM designs able to be ubiquitous.
I tend to think that MacOS is being tuned to gain general users, and vitalisation is more about the CPU designs, and avoiding to repeat a ‘cul de sac’ like PowerPC (G cpu’s).

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 6
  
  hoakley on July 28, 2022 at 2:34 pm
  
  Thank you.
  I’m curious too, and thinking of ideas for myself. One thing I have started work on is simple Docker-like command-line Linux VMs, which can simply be loaded and run from Terminal with a minimum of fuss, and a light footprint on the Mac. I’m sure that others will have much better ideas as well.
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike
  - 7
    
    P.R. on July 29, 2022 at 3:14 pm
    
    This would come in handy, especially for web dev, but is it possible to access the ports of a guest from a host with the lightweight approach?
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 8
      
      hoakley on July 29, 2022 at 5:26 pm
      
      Yes, that’s supported by a Virtio device.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
9

bemachshavashnia on July 28, 2022 at 3:00 pm

There is a trick for getting recovery mode on Monterey guests inside a Monterey host and it works in UTM.

Create a new blank volume and add it to the machine. Boot with it as a secondary volume and format it inside the Monterey guest. Shut down.

Move the blank volume up as if that was the boot volume and boot. It won’t start. Force close it and return the blank volume down.

When rebooting you will be in a strange state. I don’t remember 100% but I think that selecting cancel in a dialog or pressing cmd-q will get you to recovery.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 10
  
  hoakley on July 28, 2022 at 9:55 pm
  
  Thank you.
  I think I’ll stick with Ventura!
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike
11

EcleX on July 29, 2022 at 6:55 am

Thanks for the infornation. New release:

Just Released: VMware Fusion 22H2 Tech Preview
https://blogs.vmware.com/teamfusion/2022/07/just-released-vmware-fusion-22h2-tech-preview.html

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 12
  
  hoakley on July 29, 2022 at 8:00 am
  
  Thank you.
  That’s an extraordinary story. A year after Parallels Desktop 17, a full release, supporting virtualisation of macOS, Linux and Windows for ARM, VMware is still offering a ‘tech preview’ of virtualisation of only Linux and Windows for ARM, with no prospect of ever supporting the virtualisation of macOS on Apple silicon. How badly has VMware dropped the ball!
  It’s almost as if VMware doesn’t want to support Apple silicon at all.
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike
  - 13
    
    EcleX on July 29, 2022 at 8:27 am
    
    Thanks. In our experience, Parallels Desktop for Mac fails when trying to collect data via USB from laboratory machines that come with Windows software. Such experiments are expensive and all is lost when Parallels Desktop crashes while collecting data, which happens 100% of the times. Really frustrating. When asked about it, they said that USB support is not their priority.
    
    VMware Fusion works great in such scenario. In summary, VMware takes longer to release new versions, but eventually they do it better than Parallels.
    
    BTW, VMware said in the past that they would not support Windows on Apple Silicon, because Microsoft does not sell or support it (it seems that is due to a secret Qualcomm-Microsoft agreement). But the new release of VMware Fusion supports it. Maybe the Qualcomm-Microsoft agreement to prevent it has expired, or maybe somehow Microsoft is allowing VMware to do it under a NDA perhaps. In any case, the good news is that now not only Parallels Desktop, but also VMware Fusion are supporting Windows on Apple Silicon. Competition is good and that is great news for the future.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 14
      
      hoakley on July 29, 2022 at 8:42 am
      
      Thank you.
      Have you tried Windows for ARM in Parallels Desktop on Apple silicon? I hope this series has demonstrated that virtualisation on ARM is completely different to that on Intel. How do you know whether the same problem exists when virtualising on Apple silicon?
      VMware originally said that they wouldn’t support any virtualisation on Apple silicon, which came as a shock. Then months later they backtracked and decided that they would look at supporting it after all. Since then they have made it clear that they have no plans to virtualise macOS on Apple silicon, which they still appear to be sticking to. That in itself greatly detracts from the value of Fusion on Apple silicon.
      It’s also worth recalling that it’s not long ago that VMware was telling Parallels and their users that virtualising Windows for ARM on Apple silicon was against Microsoft’s licence, and they shouldn’t be offering that to users at all. Now they’ve decided that they should do what only a few months ago they were claiming is illegal.
      I wouldn’t touch VMware on Apple silicon with a bargepole. They’ve completely lost the plot and are now more than a year behind Parallels, just making it up as they go along.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
    - 15
      
      EcleX on July 29, 2022 at 9:50 am
      
      Thanks. I have not tried any of them on Apple Silicon yet. My experience is with Intel x86 Macs. I guess that VMware change is due to some agreement with Microsoft, perhaps under NDA, as said.
      
      Sure VMware takes more time than Parallels, but their final released Fusion application versions have been top quality so far. And no problem with USB as indicated above. Parallels simply crashes on that, wasting out time, effort and money.
      
      I hope that eventually VMware Fusion fully supports Apple Silicon Macs (maybe not this year, but eventually, in subsequent upgrades), as they have done with Intel x86 Macs so far. Time will tell, but so far these are good news, taking into account the previous situation. And competition is good as said.
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 16
      
      hoakley on July 29, 2022 at 11:18 am
      
      “VMware change is due to some agreement with Microsoft”
      What agreement? There are two licences involved when you virtualise: one is with the vendor of the virtualising software to use their product, the other governs your ability to virtualise a specific operating system. In this case, you’re referring to Windows 11 for ARM, and the licence Microsoft supplies that under, which I believe doesn’t allow you to virtualise that product on anything other than Qualcomm chips (if there). Not only that, but neither Microsoft nor VMware supplies copies of that product for such use. As far as I’m aware, you still can’t buy Windows 11 for ARM, as it’s not a distinct product for end-users to purchase, in the way that you can for Windows for Intel. VMware claimed that Parallels customers were virtualising in violation of their licence with Microsoft. What has changed to make virtualising under VMware Fusion different? I suggest the only change is that VMware is now preparing its competing product, which can only be used under exactly the same Microsoft licence as with Parallels. VMware tried a classic spoiler tactic which failed.
      
      “VMware takes more time than Parallels”
      Quite the opposite in this case. There’s good evidence that Parallels was working with Apple on virtualisation on Apple silicon Macs before their announcements at WWDC 2021. Yet VMware declared that it had no intention to do that after the first M1 Macs shipped in late 2021, and still has no plans to support virtualising macOS even now. It’s Parallels that has had the development time, and the declared intention to bring its product to Apple silicon Macs, including full virtualisation of macOS, something VMware still won’t commit itself to.
      Should VMware change its mind yet again and decide to support macOS as a guest, the earliest that could be released is in late 2023, giving it two years shorter to work on that product than Parallels. And that’s assuming that VMware does change its mind.
      Advantage Parallels.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
    - 17
      
      EcleX on July 29, 2022 at 12:48 pm
      
      Thanks. Microsoft could easily block Windows on ARM-based Apple silicon Macs. Yet, they do nothing to block such deployment by Parallels Desktop. ¿Why? I seems that Microsoft has a secret agreement with Qualcomm that prevents the former to officially sell Windows 11 and support that for Apple silicon macs. Fortunately, it seems that such agreement will expire soon.
      
      So, what can do Parallels meanwhile, just ask Microsoft to allow them to run Windows 11 preview in Apple silicon. And it seems that Microsoft agreed with that, even if under NDA.
      
      In such scenario VMware says that they will not violate the Microsoft guidelines, but since Parallels was apparently violating them, they asked Microsoft and eventually reached the same secret agreement with them under NDA. If true, that would explain all that has happened.
      
      On the other hand, VMware has released Fusion versions for new macOS versions much later than Parallels with Desktop in all versions so far. That is what I meant that they take more time. But they eventually release a much robust and professional application.
      
      Finally, we cannot use Parallels Desktop, since it crashes when collecting experimental data in the lab from Windows-based machines. Those experiments are very expensive. We have learned our lesson well. So, Parallels lack of appropriate USB support is a deal breaker for us.
      
      Having said that, competition is good for all, so I welcome VMware decision to support Windows on Apple silicon Macs. The future shows brighter now on the Mac virtualization arena for Windows…
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
  - 18
    
    John Gilbert on July 31, 2022 at 6:38 am
    
    My take on it is that VMware (as a whole) has no interest in Apple Silicon (and probably not much for Fusion on Intel) but that a small band within VMware do want to take VMware Fusion forward into the future.
    
    I have felt that Fusion has been close to the edge for some years.
    
    I largely agree with EcleX in that supported use of Fusion is very solid and reliable, arguably the best for Linux and macOS on Intel. And advice for unsupported use is available on from the Fusion Community Forum – some of the features in the new Tech Preview have been available for some time if you asked (or someone else did).
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
19

BenSar on July 29, 2022 at 3:33 pm

EcleX,

You confuse us in your first post, wrinting that your USB problem with Paralles was a critical flaw. The implication was that you were using the new Parallels on Apple silicon.

Finally, in a later post – out comes Intel! What on earth were you doing exposing your critical experimental data like this, when you had perfectly stable VMWare to run it?!

If you were “just playing around” please say so. Had I allowied such a problem to occur in a critical experiment, I would have lost my job.

On the other hand, if you are just exploring ideas, please say so up front and spare us the long litanies about vapourware.

LikeLiked by 1 person
20

Aaa on August 2, 2022 at 6:38 am

UTM can be downloaded for free from its Web site at mac.getutm.app

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 21
  
  hoakley on August 2, 2022 at 9:59 am
  
  Thank you. Yes, I actually provide that link above. I encourage all who use it to purchase it through the App Store, which ensures its further development. But if you’re too mean to give them a few $$, sure, just download it for free.
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike