hoakley August 12, 2022 Macs, Technology

Virtualisation on Apple silicon Macs: 9 Monterey’s limitations

As my own experience of lightweight virtualisation on Apple silicon Macs grows, so does my understanding of its limitations when using macOS Monterey as either guest or host. If Apple follows its recent update cycles, Monterey 12.5 is likely to be the last ‘minor’ update before the release of Ventura, and from here on, it will probably only receive urgent major general bug fixes and security updates, and no feature enhancements. If that’s correct, the state of lightweight virtualisation with Monterey is now as good as it’s likely to get. This article highlights its most significant shortcomings.

No GUI Linux at all

Support for Linux guests in the Virtualization framework in Monterey is limited to command-line only. Virtio devices such as the Linux ‘scanout’ display aren’t available. Although heavyweight virtualisers such as Parallels and UTM may support GUI Linux guests, those based entirely on the Virtualization framework can’t: for GUI Linux guests, you’ll need a Ventura host.

No Windows for ARM at all

Microsoft doesn’t offer Windows for ARM as a product, only through its Insider Preview programme, or bundled with hardware. One of the clearly stated requirements of that programme is that a fully licensed copy of Microsoft Windows is already installed on that system, which Apple silicon Macs can’t comply with. Even if Microsoft were to offer licences for sale, as Windows doesn’t support the Virtio device standard on which lightweight virtualisation relies, a great deal of development would have to be performed before Windows for ARM could supported.

No Rosetta 2 for Linux

The availability of Rosetta 2 x86_64 code translation within Linux guests is limited to Ventura hosts, and not available in Monterey. However, Rosetta 2 is fully available in macOS Monterey guests regardless of the host. If you need to run x86_64 code in a Linux VM, then your host must be running Ventura.

No Apple ID access

For many potential users, the biggest limitation with macOS running in a VM is its inability to log into your Apple ID. This prevents access to the App Store, blocks the use of all paid-for and third-party App Store apps, rules out all iCloud and iCloud Drive access, and more.

There are workarounds for iCloud and iCloud Drive access, including logging into your account via icloud.com, and relying on access provided by the host. Fortunately, most shared services, such as address book and calendars, aren’t really that important for the guest macOS.

Apple’s licence grants the use of virtualised macOS for four specific purposes:

software development;
testing during software development;
using macOS Server;
personal, non-commercial use.

For the first two, the inability to connect to iCloud is a serious limitation; the third purpose ceased to be meaningful when Apple discontinued its Server product back in April, and the final purpose could well be heavily dependent on paid-for and third-party App Store apps.

One of the most compelling uses of lightweight virtualisation is to enable us to run older apps that are incompatible with more recent macOS. When the host is running macOS 16, I’m sure there will be apps that ran in 12 but can’t cope with later versions of macOS. However, if those apps were delivered through the App Store, they can’t be run on a Monterey guest, even if Apple decides to support Apple ID access in Ventura or later. Bizarrely, Apple has put the apps it sells – its own, and those of third-party developers – at a major disadvantage in lightweight VMs.

At first I suspected that signing in with an Apple ID was restricted to virtualisers which had been granted the entitlement for a Bridged Network Device, but that isn’t the case. The fallback explanation became a requirement for access to the Secure Enclave, but that doesn’t apply to guest macOS virtualised on Intel Macs. It appears that this is a limitation entirely of Apple’s own making, and could in future be addressed by a suitable authentication service, which almost certainly won’t be accessible from Monterey guests.

No shared folders

I’ve so far been unable to share folders between the file systems of the guest and host, despite them being documented as available in macOS 12. I notice that this remains a stated limitation of Parallels Desktop version 18, which has only been released this week, and in VirtualBuddy.

One explanation for this is that mounting shared folders by 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.

Again, there are workarounds. Enabling file sharing on the host, then connecting to that share from the guest using SMB works well, but is considerably slower. Convenient solutions such as AirDrop and iCloud Drive aren’t available because of the block on Apple ID access.

No non-standard devices

Lightweight virtualisation is completely reliant on the suites of Virtio and custom devices built into both the host and guest operating systems, but that also limits its support to those devices alone. This means that, as a guest operating system, Monterey will be limited to the devices it has at present, which excludes arbitrary external storage, optical drives, webcams, and other USB devices. In the future, lightweight virtualisation may preserve access to older software, but not to older hardware.

One issue of particular relevance to Linux guests is that the VM can’t access external file systems such as Btrfs except through sharing in the host macOS. Unless the host macOS has support for that external file system, and can share it, the guest will be unable to access it.

Clipboard, trackpad limitations

Other devices also currently have limited or absent support for Monterey guests. There’s no specific support at present for trackpads, although the mouse device works well unless you want to use gestures, which require a more advanced trackpad device only available in Ventura hosts. Spice clipboard support is less clear: that may yet come to work with Monterey.

Ventura

With Ventura due for release this autumn/fall, probably in October, most of those limitations fall away, at least for Ventura guests running on Ventura hosts. Then the greatest remaining shortcoming will be lack of support for Apple ID features, which Apple may yet decide to address in any case. Sadly, most will come too late for Monterey guests, which are likely to be seen as Apple’s dress rehearsal for full virtualisation, not its opening performance. In a few years time I fear we’ll look back at Monterey as being only half a guest operating system.

References

Apple’s account of the Virtualisation framework
Parallels’ details of limitations to Desktop 18
VirtualBuddy
UTM
VMware Fusion has no plans for virtualising macOS on Apple silicon Macs
This series: 6 Support limits
This series: 8 How Apple limits VMs

42Comments

Add yours

1

EcleX on August 12, 2022 at 8:13 am

Thanks for the information. Albeit limited, as you surely know, besides Parallels Desktop (released, as you indicate) and VMware Fusion (pre-release) offer Windows 11 for ARM on Apple silicon Macs.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 2
  
  hoakley on August 12, 2022 at 8:24 am
  
  Thank you.
  So here’s a simple question: given Microsoft’s licence and support policies, will your employer be deploying Windows 11 for ARM on the Apple silicon Macs it uses?
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike
  - 3
    
    EcleX on August 12, 2022 at 10:01 am
    
    Thanks. Well, that is better than nothing, and allows advancing in development, until the secret agreement between Qualcomm and Microsoft expires soon (hopefully), allowing the latter to license Windows 11 for ARM to end users. More information here from the horse’s mouth:
    
    Why did VMware change its mind about Windows 11 on ARM-based Apple silicon?
    https://communities.vmware.com/t5/Fusion-22H2-Tech-Preview/Why-did-VMware-change-its-mind-about-Windows-11-on-ARM-based/td-p/2923238
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 4
      
      hoakley on August 12, 2022 at 10:19 am
      
      A simple yes or no answer is all that is expected. To say that something “is better than nothing” is only true if you can use it. Does your employer consider that Microsoft’s licence and support allow you to run Windows 11 for ARM on an Apple silicon Mac?
      As for VMware, don’t forget that last year they were telling Parallels users that they were in breach of their Microsoft licences. Nothing has changed with those licences, yet now VMware has decided it’s fine for VMware users to virtualise Windows for ARM. Have they apologised to Parallels for their deliberate attempt to damage its sales? Or Parallels users for the lies they told them at that time, apparently?
      No, as VMware knows well, the licence to use Windows of any flavour is between Microsoft and the end user. It has absolutely nothing to do with VMware or Parallels.
      So, which is it, yes or no?
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
    - 5
      
      hoakley on August 12, 2022 at 10:23 am
      
      Oh – and if you don’t believe me on operating system licensing and virtualisation, then show me VirtualBuddy’s or Viable’s licence from Apple to permit them to virtualise macOS.
      I can assure you that there is no such licence – the only licence applicable is that between Apple and you, the end user, which limits the number and purpose of virtualised copies of macOS as I have explained.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
    - 6
      
      EcleX on August 12, 2022 at 10:38 am
      
      Thanks. Michael Roy (Mikero; VMware Fusion product manager) said in the link above (Twitter message) “We asked ‘is WoA on M1 licensable?’ They said ‘each customer has a relationship between themselves and Microsoft.’ That was their guidance”.
      
      I do not have employer in the sense that I am free to install any software. What I meant is that we use Macs almost all the time. But, unfortunately, sometimes we need to use Windows. For instance, to run specific scientific applications only available in Windows, digitally sign grant applications, etc at the University.
      
      In such instances, it is good to have access to Windows from Mac, even if not fully supported. Then we just want to perform some task, and if the installed Windows does, that is what we want. So, the answer in our case is yes, we want Wndows 11 ARM in Fusion in Mac. Of course, it would be better with full support, but otherwise also if we can accomplish such tasks. That is what I meant.
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 7
      
      hoakley on August 12, 2022 at 10:54 am
      
      So you consider that your current licences to use Windows do allow you to use Windows for ARM, which is only available through the Insider Preview programme, on Apple silicon Macs?
      The reason that I ask is that Microsoft is quite explicit about the limitations of that programme, and makes it clear that products supplied under that programme can only be installed on systems on which a licensed copy of Windows is already installed. While you can do that on an Intel Mac, that is (and looks to remain) impossible on Apple silicon Macs.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
    - 8
      
      EcleX on August 12, 2022 at 6:27 pm
      
      Thanks. All this is amazing. Microsoft could easily block installing Windows 11 for ARM on ARM-based Apple silicon Macs. Yet, they allow it. And both Parallels and VMware are promoting it. And Microsoft knows it.
      
      What is the conclusion? It seems clear: Microsoft does not mind and actually wants people to do it. Otherwise, they would block it.
      
      Why all this childish behavior? Probably, due to the secret agreement between Qualcomm and Microsoft, that is said to expire soon. So, they are all preparing for what is coming next corner… But they cannot explain it clearly yet, due to NDA. We should hear a clear Microsoft support soon. Probably, before year’s end. Otherwise, all this does not make sense.
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 9
      
      hoakley on August 12, 2022 at 9:09 pm
      
      That sounds like a whole lot of wishful thinking to me, all founded on a single rumour about some “secret agreement” between Microsoft and Qualcomm that no one actually knows anything about. Until such time as Microsoft offers copies of Windows 11 for ARM for sale and licensing is clear and above board, any company or organisation that conducts software audit would surely find it very hard to justify, say, installing 5,000 virtualised copies of Windows for ARM on their shiny new Apple silicon Macs. And if it doesn’t pass such an audit, who can afford to do that?
      I’m surprised to hear that your university doesn’t appear to conduct software audit in this way. When I was working in central government, that was enforced in the late 20th century. If you couldn’t demonstrate that all your software was properly licensed, then you wouldn’t be allowed to use that computer, and some offenders were dismissed.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
    - 10
      
      EcleX on August 13, 2022 at 6:46 am
      
      Thanks. Sure. Whatever the case, it is surprising that Microsoft does not block such installations, when it would be extremely easy for them to do it. Obviously, they want them. That is a strong argument in any case. Tme will tell how this story ends. My guess is that Microsoft will fully support it soon, because of all those facts, including the words of Mikero and most importantly the surprising change of VMware in this topic. Clearly, there is something there that we do not fully know yet.
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 11
      
      hoakley on August 13, 2022 at 8:40 am
      
      Why are you surprised that Microsoft doesn’t “block such installations”? If each is authorised by a genuine key for Windows, it’s selling copies it wouldn’t otherwise be selling. So blocking them would be reducing its revenue, and would cost engineering effort, which would probably only be bypassed in any case.
      There are very few facts involved. The most obvious are the facts that, since first announcing Apple silicon Macs over two years ago, Apple hasn’t mentioned Windows running on them once, although it has repeatedly shown macOS and Linux in virtualisation, neither has Microsoft mentioning running Windows on Apple silicon.
      VMware and Parallels will tell you almost anything you might want to hear, if it increases their sales. But they don’t know the facts of what Apple or Microsoft intends. For all we know, Microsoft might intend releasing a version of Windows for Apple silicon. While I very much doubt that, none of us knows.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
    - 12
      
      EcleX on August 13, 2022 at 10:11 am
      
      Thanks. Microsoft could easily block installing Windows on Apple silicon (the installer just checks which CPU is involved), yet they do not. That is surprising if they really do not want such installations. Obviously, they want such installations. There is no doubt about it. But why all this confusing behavior?
      
      Apple (Craig Federighi) has said several times that they want Windows on Apple silicon, but that it does not depend on Apple; it is up to Microsoft. Microsoft has said to both Parallels and VMware not to worry about licensing issues with such companies, indicating that the licensing is a deal between Microsoft and the end user (Mikero). Therefore, VMware has shifted from no way to install Windows on Fusion on Apple Silicon, to supporting it with enthusiam (Mikero). That speaks for itself.
      
      As you say, none of us knows for sure. But reading between lines shows what is going on (Qualcomm-Microsoft secret agreement that is expected to expire soon). As said, time will tell. But right now the expectations are optimistic, because of all those facts.
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 13
      
      hoakley on August 13, 2022 at 1:38 pm
      
      “Microsoft could easily block installing Windows on Apple silicon”
      Do please tell me how to do that in a virtualiser. Windows doesn’t see the processor at all, it gets told the processor type and identity by the virtualiser. So, please explain.
      
      “Obviously, they want such installations”
      So why doesn’t Microsoft sell the product, then? If I wanted someone to use my commercial product, the first step I’d take would be to offer it for sale, yet Microsoft doesn’t, does it?
      
      “Microsoft has said to both Parallels and VMware not to worry about licensing issues with such companies, indicating that the licensing is a deal between Microsoft and the end user”
      That has always been the case, as I have repeatedly said. It is not up to Microsoft, that’s the way that software licensing works. This is nothing new, and goes right back to the first commercial virtualisation products, including VMware. It also applies to Linux and macOS: the licence is between the operating system vendor and the end user. I really don’t believe that Microsoft had to tell anyone that; if they did, then someone would be have wetting themselves with laughter.
      
      “Therefore, VMware has shifted”
      That’s only a small part of the VMware story. Two years ago, VMware stated that it no plans *at all* to virtualise on Apple silicon. Then it changed its mind, and decided that it would, but wouldn’t offer macOS as a guest operating system.
      Currently, VMware’s stated policy for Apple silicon is only to virtualise Linux and Windows for ARM, but not macOS. Not only that, but it has stated that it will not be supporting future versions of macOS, from Ventura onwards, as guest operating systems on any platform. I also believe that, unlike other contenders, Fusion won’t support Rosetta 2 translation of x86_64 binaries within a Linux VM, which is a feature available from other vendors in conjunction with Ventura, and my free Liviable should support it soon.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
    - 14
      
      EcleX on August 13, 2022 at 10:41 pm
      
      Thanks. I guess that only people at Microsoft, VMware and Parallels know the answers. But there is an intriguing fact: Microsoft could force them both to stop supporting Windows on Apple silicon. Yet, Microsoft has not done it. And when asked, Microsoft said not to worry, since it is a deal between Microsoft and the end users.
      
      So, both VMware and Parallels enthusiastically promote Windows on Apple silicon and Microsoft does nothing as said. That is remarkable and the answers are just there: they want such Windows sales, but they cannot say it openly until the secret agreement with Qualcomm expires. As said, hopefully, we will see that soon. I might be wrong, but I believe that I am right. As said, time will tell.
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 15
      
      hoakley on August 14, 2022 at 6:34 am
      
      “But there is an intriguing fact: Microsoft could force them both to stop supporting Windows on Apple silicon. Yet, Microsoft has not done it.”
      There is another intriguing fact: Apple could block macOS from installing on Hackintoshes. Yet Apple has not done it. So are you arguing that Apple is encouraging Hackintoshes? Because that’s simply untrue, isn’t it?
      
      “when asked, Microsoft said not to worry, since it is a deal between Microsoft and the end users.”
      Microsoft has never said anything of the kind, has it? You’re putting words into its corporate mouth. Microsoft has simply stated what I’ve been stating all along, which is that the licence agreement (not “a deal”) is between Microsoft and the end user.
      That’s exactly the same as the situation between Apple and users of macOS. And if you care to refer to Apple’s licence agreements, you’ll see exactly what Apple allows and what it doesn’t. It’s the same legal arrangement with respect to your use of Windows, that’s regulated by the licence agreement that Microsoft imposes on you as a user.
      
      “both VMware and Parallels enthusiastically promote Windows on Apple silicon”
      Of course they do, as that promotes the sale of their products. They also promote Linux, and Parallels promotes macOS, although as VMware Fusion preview can’t virtualise macOS, strangely VMware doesn’t promote virtualising macOS on Apple silicon.
      But if you look back just over a year, you’ll find VMware warning Parallels users that virtualising Windows for ARM was against their licence. Why was that? It was at the time when VMware didn’t support Apple silicon at all, as it had decided that it wouldn’t do so.
      
      “until the secret agreement with Qualcomm expires”
      If we know about it, it isn’t secret. But we don’t know about it, do we, otherwise we’d know if it is set to expire, and if it is, when it expires. In any case, if there is such an agreement, how do we know that Microsoft and Qualcomm aren’t going to renew it? What makes you think that anything there is either relevant, or is likely to change in the next year or two? This is no more than a rumour, and in your case wishful thinking.
      
      In any case, if you think that Microsoft is happy for you to virtualise Windows 11 for ARM on Apple silicon, why aren’t you doing it already? What are you waiting for? What will time tell?
      
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
    - 16
      
      EcleX on August 14, 2022 at 12:28 pm
      
      Thanks. Comments:
      
      1. Apple has prosecuted all companies selling hackintoshes. Apple does not prosecute the non-profit Hackintosh community because they may work for free for Apple, as done with Boot Camp.
      
      2. When VMware asked Microsoft about this, they did not say that it was not allowed for VMware. That is why VMware changed its mind, since Microsoft allows them to release Fusion for Windows for Apple silicon, as Mikero said.
      
      3. Hopefully, VMware will support virtualizing macOS on Apple silicon, as explained here by Mikero:
      
      Just Released: VMware Fusion 22H2 Tech Preview
      macOS virtual machines are out of scope for this release, but it’s something we’re looking into.
      https://blogs.vmware.com/teamfusion/2022/07/just-released-vmware-fusion-22h2-tech-preview.html
      
      4. The information about the secret agreement between Microsoft and Qualcomm is a leak. It could be true or false. Only they know for sure. But it fits well to explain the otherwise current confusing situation. Time will tell.
      
      5. I am not virtualizing Windows in Apple silicon Macs because I am using Intel x86-based Mac for such purpose. I hope that by the time that I need it in Apple silicon, all this will be available from Microsoft to end users.
      
      In conclusion, nobody except people at Microsoft, Qualcomm, VMware and Parallels know for sure about this topic (probably under NDA, for some of them at least). But the currently available information seems to indicate that we will have good news sooner than later. I hope so. And it is also good news to see VMware Fusion in this area, since competition is good for all. So, as said, time will tell the final outcome.
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 17
      
      hoakley on August 14, 2022 at 1:58 pm
      
      1. Of course. But neither VMware nor Parallels are selling Windows, are they? If one person violates their Windows licence agreement, it’s not worth Microsoft even sending them a ‘cease and desist’. But if you’re an enterprise with 2,000 licences for Windows and 10,000 copies installed in VMs, Microsoft is likely to get seriously upset by that. So tell me of an enterprise user who has 1,000 or more copies of Windows 11 for ARM running on the M1 Macs.
      
      2. You still haven’t grasped this point. There’s no licence agreement between Microsoft and any developer of virtualising software, because that software doesn’t licence or sell Windows. The licence which applies is the same licence that always applies, and that’s between Microsoft and the end user. Microsoft has no powers to stop anyone developing virtualising software – what about UTM and QEMU, which are open source?
      
      3. “something we’re looking into” They’ve been doing that for the last two years, and it’s still not going to happen this year. Don’t hold your breath, as VMware normally releases its annual new version well into the autumn, which means late 2023 at the earliest. If they ever finish looking into it.
      
      4. You referred to that secret agreement as fact.
      
      5. So you don’t actually know how any of this is done or works? Have you never installed Windows 11 for ARM in a VM? So how come you’re telling me so much about it? (And yes, I have, but not in the VMware preview.)
      
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
    - 18
      
      EcleX on August 14, 2022 at 5:03 pm
      
      Howard, I know nothing, as Scrates said…
      
      🙂
      
      It is all in the web. For instance:
      
      Fusion TP Discussions
      https://communities.vmware.com/t5/Fusion-22H2-Tech-Preview/bd-p/160004
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
19

John Gilbert on August 12, 2022 at 10:53 am

Hope I am wrong, but:

I do wonder who will use virtualisation of macOS (or anything else) on Apple Silicon, and Ventura doesn’t change that.

Of the four (really 3) categories licensed to use virtualised macOS:
1) Software development and testing: Only those that have no use for iCloud, USB, etc.
2) MacOS Server which is dead – anyone sensible would use a Linux vm.
3) Personal use: Who would we need that given limitations re iCloud, USB, etc.
Seems a rather small spread of use cases.

And the commercial vm products:
1) VMware says its won’t support macOS guests,
2) Parallels says it uses the Apple virtualisation frame – who would pay for that when your ‘product’, UTM and others can do that for free?

Virtualisation of Windows on macOS has licensing issues which severely limits it usefulness except for tinkering and some personal use.

That leaves virtualising Linux clients (mostly for server functionality) as the only serious use for virtualisation on Apple Silicon.

Undue doom and gloom for virtualisation on macOS? Maybe, but I don’t see a light at the end of a distant tunnel.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 20
  
  hoakley on August 12, 2022 at 11:05 am
  
  Thank you.
  Apple has complete control over its licence, and can change those terms should it wish. It could also open up features currently limited by its Virtualization framework. However, the point of this article is that the latter will almost certainly never change the limitations of Monterey guests.
  The situation with Parallels is interesting, as all the indications are that it has been working with Apple on the framework since before the first announcement of Apple silicon. So a lot may yet change there, if what Parallels writes is true. Again, though, little of this will affect what you can do with a Monterey guest.
  So I think macOS virtualisation is likely to become far more serious in Ventura, and Apple’s docs already reveal some of the features like shared folders and clipboard access which do change.
  Windows of course is outside Apple’s control or influence, as it always has been.
  But this was one of the clear consequences of changing architecture, something I’ve been warning about for over two years. What is exciting now is access to Rosetta 2 from Linux, and how simple it is to virtualise macOS, which was previously tough even for VMware and Parallels: on Apple silicon you get native Metal and GPU performance, which has long been the Holy Grail on Intel.
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike
- 21
  
  Tim R on August 12, 2022 at 11:58 am
  
  To me the biggest use case of Mac virtualization will come when Apple stops supporting Rosetta 2. That WILL happen, probably by macOS 15 or 16 at the latest, with warnings showing up in macOS 14. Most of the work until then will be preparing for that future, with Linux and Windows being a side benefit (or afterthought, as they are now).
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
22

dominikushoffmann on August 12, 2022 at 4:48 pm

I am looking forward to when I can readily and efficiently use large assemblies in SolidWorks running on Windows for ARM in a VM on my M1 Max MacBook Pro. It already works pretty well. It’s just the graphics card implementation that can’t match, what I used to see on my Intel 2017 MacBook Pro.

Of course, SolidWorks will never come out with CAD running on macOS natively. ☹️

LikeLiked by 1 person
23

Jon on August 16, 2022 at 9:15 am

Your coverage of virtualization on macOS continues to be excellent and greatly appreciated (and I would say the same for the rest of the content of this blog)

I have a one quick question:
In the conclusion you say, “With Ventura due for release this autumn/fall, probably in October, most of those limitations fall away, at least for Ventura guests running on Ventura hosts.”

To what degree does this apply to the aforementioned “No non-standard devices” category of restrictions. Can a Ventura guest running on a Ventura host access USB, bluetooth, and other devices (such as game controllers)?
From looking at the documentation it’s clear that USB Mass Storage is supported but I’m unclear on what else.

It has always seemed odd to me that a lot of these things work on Windows ARM VMs (via Parallels) but not macOS.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 24
  
  hoakley on August 16, 2022 at 9:44 am
  
  Thank you. Currently, most non-standard devices aren’t supported in Ventura, but there’s a whole year ahead in which that can change. I can’t see anything changing with Monterey.
  Howard
  
  LikeLike
25

A. Klinck on January 16, 2023 at 2:41 am

I’m not sure if this is the best place to ask, but there’s mention of USB devices above, so I’m at least hopefully on-topic!

Has here been any notable progress on passing through USB devices to the guests, other than stuff like a trackpad? If so, is this something destined for an upcoming Viable(S)?

(I haven’t discarded the other “boot thread”, just too much to write on that right now, and this is hopefully a tightly constrained question). Thanks.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 26
  
  hoakley on January 16, 2023 at 4:40 am
  
  That’s not the way that lightweight virtualisation works. The virtio devices supported have to be written into macOS. There’s no way for third-parties to add their own. Apple doesn’t provide raw devices, but the ones I listed in the earlier article here.
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike
  - 27
    
    A. Klinck on January 16, 2023 at 8:45 am
    
    Thanks. The nature of having a set of standards and supported device types to funnel through makes perfect sense, I’m just not sure what that means in practice. i.e. with all the millions of devices out in the world, everything from gaming trackballs to 3D printers, will they all need new/updated custom drivers, or will most/many of them “just work”, or something inbetween?
    
    I have a specific device I’m trying to communicate with via an app running in either a macOS or Linux VM. The app installs and launches in ViableS just fine in a guest macOS VM, but there’s no hint that there’s any kind of USB device available at all.
    
    I actually did load the Virtio standards page for grins. It’s nice to see so much information, but definitely overwhelming!
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 28
      
      hoakley on January 16, 2023 at 9:03 am
      
      Devices depend not on their physical connection, but where they interface to macOS. Thus the drivers involved aren’t in the VM (which simply ignores them) but in the host. For example, if you’ve got a USB mike, then it interfaces with the host macOS audio. Change that to take audio input from the mike, and it’s that audio that will be delivered to the VM. Lightweight virtualisation thus deals with abstracted virtio devices, not physical ones.
      If you can tell me what your device is, I can perhaps suggest whether it will be accessible in a VM.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
29

A. Klinck on January 16, 2023 at 9:46 am

It’s actually 2 separate specific devices, a 3D printer and a laser cutter. But I’d have to think they both operate essentially like a printer from a device/interface standpoint. Both are common manufacturers that are supposed to be auto-recognized by the software, at least outside a VM.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 30
  
  hoakley on January 16, 2023 at 10:02 am
  
  Thank you.
  Funnily enough I know about laser (and water jet, and plasma) cutters, as I used to write apps to support them during the 1990s.
  You can forget ever having access to either 3D printers or cutters from within a VM. Currently, there’s no printer support at all, and no sign of Apple adding any. If you want to print a document in a VM, copy it to a shared folder and print it from the host.
  No printer drivers can be installed in a VM AFAIK, as there simply isn’t support in the virtio interfaces.
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike
31

A. Klinck on January 16, 2023 at 11:11 am

Well that’s certainly disappointing, but thank you for the information.
From the variety of things I’ve been reading over recent days, it does seem like heavyweight emulation VM should work (with some configuration effort), but please stop me if I’m headed down a dead end path!

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 32
  
  hoakley on January 16, 2023 at 12:14 pm
  
  “heavyweight emulation VM should work”
  I’m not sure I understand. If you’re referring to x86 emulation, I don’t think anyone is pursuing this seriously given Rosetta 2, and the decline in interest in running x86 software on Apple silicon Macs.
  If you’re referring to virtualisation built from ground up, then no one is doing that for macOS, as it’s simply impossible at present. Of the two major virtualisation vendors, VMware has abandoned any effort to even produce lightweight virtualisation, and is strongly x86. Parallels has brought out a lightweight virtualiser, but has put limited engineering effort into that.
  Virtualising macOS on Apple silicon Macs from scratch would require hundreds of person-years of engineering work, and because Apple doesn’t document any of the hardware in its chips, isn’t currently feasible. I also strongly suspect there isn’t the market for it either.
  So Apple’s lightweight virtualisation is going to be the best you’re going to get for the foreseeable future. Sorry.
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike
  - 33
    
    A. Klinck on January 16, 2023 at 7:57 pm
    
    We’re probably having near-misses because of terminology. I’m a dev, but this is obviously not my area of expertise, so I apologize for perhaps not being clear. I’m talking about emulation -as-opposed- to virtualization.
    
    To be specific, I’m talking about something like UTM (qemu), where I can run versions of Linux on different processor architectures. In this case, running ubuntu in an emulated AMD64 VM, with macOS M2 as host. UTM clearly has mappings for USB devices, and I can see them pop up as being available to the guest as soon as I plug devices into the host. Getting the app to work in the guest OS is another story, which is what I was referring to with “configuration effort”. I haven’t yet tried something easier like printing from within the guest OS; that will probably be next.
    
    So far I have not been able to get the app to recognize the USB device (cutter), but as of now I’m wondering if it’s due to the app itself not liking the environment its operating in, which would clearly be out of scope for this thread. But, if you know of some general problem with apps running in a guest OS using USB devices in an emulated environment (not just virtualized) that would be great to know. Thanks.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 34
      
      A. Klinck on January 16, 2023 at 8:08 pm
      
      Quick follow-up.
      
      I was indeed able to print a simple document from inside the guestOS in this particular VM. So basic USB running inside the emulator through the host is working. Now even more I suspect the app is at fault, in which case this question may simply be out of scope here. Unless you have any other thoughts or ideas.
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 35
      
      hoakley on January 16, 2023 at 9:04 pm
      
      That’s from a Linux guest, though, not macOS? There some slight differences in the way they print!
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
    - 36
      
      hoakley on January 16, 2023 at 9:00 pm
      
      Thank you for clarifying.
      I don’t think you’d really want a macOS emulator, even if it worked well.
      Hardware emulation has to have a target. The only meaningful target here would be an Intel Mac without a T2 chip, as I don’t think anyone knows enough about T2 chips to emulate them.
      There’s one immediate problem, though: how do you install macOS on them? Since Big Sur, the macOS installer and updater has become far more complex. It doesn’t just install files, but has to create a snapshot with a hash tree, forming the SSV. Just getting APFS running would be a major challenge, let alone support for the installer.
      There’s a huge amount of work, precious little code available in source, and at the end of it, you’d end up running a slow emulation of a Mac you could probably buy secondhand for a few hundred dollars at most. Then comes the question of Apple’s macOS licence, which permits up to 2 copies of macOS to be run in VMs on a Mac running macOS. It makes no provision for the user to run macOS in emulation. So if you to try to sell it, I think you’d very quickly get a cease and desist order.
      BTW, which versions of Intel macOS can UTM run on Apple silicon Macs?
      The reason this is so much easier with Linux is that none of those problems applies to Linux, where the whole source is available, even ported to ARM if you prefer, and there’s no licence to worry about.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
    - 37
      
      dominikushoffmann on January 16, 2023 at 9:23 pm
      
      I have VMs in UTM for Leopard, El Capitan and Mac OS 9.2.1. They don’t all work equally well. I had hoped to use the Leopard and El Capitan VMs to be able to open Microsoft Word files, which 64-bit versions of Word will no longer open, ostensibly because of security risks.
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 38
      
      hoakley on January 16, 2023 at 9:24 pm
      
      And they run on Apple silicon?
      Howard
      
      LikeLike
    - 39
      
      dominikushoffmann on January 16, 2023 at 9:32 pm
      
      Yes, I should have said so in the first place. UTM’s gallery has one for Mac OS 9 ready made, for download. The others required some research and trial and error. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to support networking, which makes exfiltrating converted files difficult or even impossible.
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 40
      
      hoakley on January 16, 2023 at 9:34 pm
      
      Thank you. So in terms of function, they’re more limited than lightweight Ventura VM?
      Howard
      
      LikeLike
41

A. Klinck on January 18, 2023 at 12:23 am

re: I don’t think you’d really want a macOS emulator, even if it worked well.

I have two separate projects/battles, there’s just some overlap thanks to all the VM/virtualization advances (and limitations).

The first battle is about having a wide range of bootable external drives, and I’m going to try to keep that on the other thread. This battle is about physical devices, differing USB support within both VMs and VEs , in different OSs, etc.

Yes, this last part was about the UTM VM with guest Ubuntu AMD64 I mentioned just above. What you’re saying is indeed what I’m seeing, and that is that Linux opens up a much wider set of opportunities for working with various hardware in a VM. Thankfully the software I’m evaluating is available for Linux. Of course we’re running into specific compatibility issues, which I think are more of an issue in general for Linux than Mac, but there are also add’l issues due to running inside a VM.

And of course the x86 Ubuntu VM doesn’t run nearly as fast on the M1 as the arm Ubuntu VM, but the app itself only runs on x86, so no choice. And for this particular need, it doesn’t need to be very speedy.

In any case, thanks. I’ll circle back to the other thread when I return to that painful project.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 42
  
  hoakley on January 18, 2023 at 8:53 pm
  
  “the app itself only runs on x86, so no choice”
  Linux VMs running on Apple silicon have full access to Rosetta 2 so they can translate and run x86 apps within the VM. This is enabled in Liviable, although there’s some setting up to do within the VM, and it’s untested yet, AFAIK.
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike