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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 can do both depending on how you configure it.
UTM does both. hypervisor for ARM, qemu for other archs
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.
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.
AI slop from the looks of it. The title is a clickbait also.
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"
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.
You don't know much about Mac bloggers then.
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.
Yeah, it tends to be like "the article title has 'is' in the title, it's slop"