VMWare Fusion announces macOS Big Sur-compatible tech preview

Comments

• Reply 1 of 13

  blastdoor Posts: 3,296member

  June 23, 2020 7:51PM

  The question:
  
  "How would you use Fusion on ARM?" 
  
  kind of makes me wonder if they are trying to figure out if it makes sense to support Apple Silicon. 
  
  This also makes me think that there is no clear plan/intent to have Windows running on Apple Silicon. 
  
  No biggie for me -- I'm only interested in Mac and Linux. But I can appreciate this would be a deal breaker for some users. 

  
• Reply 2 of 13

  anome Posts: 1,533member

  June 23, 2020 8:28PM

  I'm watching all this in self-interest. I've just recently gotten back into running Windows games in Parallels (yes, I know). Previously I was using both Windows Server and Linux VMs as a test bed for work related stuff.
  
  Would I be really upset if Windows support was dropped completely? Not sure. I don't really want to buy a machine just for gaming - I can barely justify the number of machines I have currently. So I'm kind of curious as to what happens with Fusion and Parallels with regards Windows Virtualisation. I'm old enough to remember Soft Windows running on a PowerMac 6100/60. Not the greatest experience, but with surprising performance for total x86 emulation. (At the time I was working with actual Windows machines that made it look positively speedy.)
  
  Can the Apple Silicon succeed where PPC nearly did 25 years ago? Seems plausible, but doubtful.
  

  
• Reply 3 of 13

  maltz Posts: 454member

  June 23, 2020 8:47PM

  anome said:

  I'm old enough to remember Soft Windows running on a PowerMac 6100/60. Not the greatest experience, but with surprising performance for total x86 emulation. (At the time I was working with actual Windows machines that made it look positively speedy.)
  
  Can the Apple Silicon succeed where PPC nearly did 25 years ago? Seems plausible, but doubtful.
  

  
  

  The PowerMac 6100 had an optional DOS compatibility card that had a bonafide 486 system-on-a-card.  Are you sure that's not what you were using that had passable performance?  Because none of the purely software solutions I ever tried were really usable for anything than just to play with.
  

  
  

  That said, the CPU is a lot smaller part of a machine's overall performance today than it was 20-25 years ago.  But mostly, I would be very surprised if Windows-on-Mac is soon to be a thing of the past, especially when Rosetta 2 is inevitably retired, other than maybe running the ARM version of Windows - which is really beside the point.
  

  
• Reply 4 of 13

  mjtomlin Posts: 2,673member

  June 23, 2020 8:58PM

  anome said:

  Can the Apple Silicon succeed where PPC nearly did 25 years ago? Seems plausible, but doubtful.
  

  
  Modern CPUs have multiple cores and they are extremely fast. There's no reason a PC emulation app today would be as dreadful as they were back then.

  
• Reply 5 of 13

  sflocal Posts: 6,095member

  June 23, 2020 9:09PM

  I run Windows on all my Macs using VMWare.  Unfortunately, some of my development tools (IBM) are Windows-only and it's not going to change.  I hope there is a path for VMWare to run Windows x86(64) on ARM.  It's only used for business apps so it's not necessarily needed to be a max-performance setup.  

  
  

  I watched the keynote and I got the impression that while MacOS will run x86 for the next few years, I feel it's going to take the back-burner as time goes on to focus more on MacOS(ARM) edition.

  
  

  I was planning to buy an iMac this year to replace my 2015 iMac.  I still might, but I think I'm going to wait to see what the ARM Macs will do.  It's pretty exciting and I understand and support Apple's reasons for doing so.  Intel screwed up (as usual), and I don't believe Apple will ever go with AMD, although that would be nice.

  
  

  I think Apple's CPU offerings are superior to what Intel has been offering.  I'm excited to see how far Apple will take this approach.  High performance, with low heat will make for some exciting iMac designs.  I just hope they still include user-upgradeable RAM and hopefully not turn it into a giant iPad on a stand with everything sealed.

  
• Reply 6 of 13

  mwhite Posts: 287member

  June 23, 2020 10:52PM

  maltz said:

  anome said:

  I'm old enough to remember Soft Windows running on a PowerMac 6100/60. Not the greatest experience, but with surprising performance for total x86 emulation. (At the time I was working with actual Windows machines that made it look positively speedy.)
  
  Can the Apple Silicon succeed where PPC nearly did 25 years ago? Seems plausible, but doubtful.
  

  
  

  The PowerMac 6100 had an optional DOS compatibility card that had a bonafide 486 system-on-a-card.  Are you sure that's not what you were using that had passable performance?  Because none of the purely software solutions I ever tried were really usable for anything than just to play with.
  

  
  

  That said, the CPU is a lot smaller part of a machine's overall performance today than it was 20-25 years ago.  But mostly, I would be very surprised if Windows-on-Mac is soon to be a thing of the past, especially when Rosetta 2 is inevitably retired, other than maybe running the ARM version of Windows - which is really beside the point.
  

  
  I had that card and it ran dang good, compared to any software at that time.
  

  
• Reply 7 of 13

  redgeminipa Posts: 555member

  June 23, 2020 11:32PM

  sflocal said:

  I run Windows on all my Macs using VMWare.  Unfortunately, some of my development tools (IBM) are Windows-only and it's not going to change.  I hope there is a path for VMWare to run Windows x86(64) on ARM.  It's only used for business apps so it's not necessarily needed to be a max-performance setup.  

  
  

  I watched the keynote and I got the impression that while MacOS will run x86 for the next few years, I feel it's going to take the back-burner as time goes on to focus more on MacOS(ARM) edition.

  
  

  I was planning to buy an iMac this year to replace my 2015 iMac.  I still might, but I think I'm going to wait to see what the ARM Macs will do.  It's pretty exciting and I understand and support Apple's reasons for doing so.  Intel screwed up (as usual), and I don't believe Apple will ever go with AMD, although that would be nice.

  
  

  I think Apple's CPU offerings are superior to what Intel has been offering.  I'm excited to see how far Apple will take this approach.  High performance, with low heat will make for some exciting iMac designs.  I just hope they still include user-upgradeable RAM and hopefully not turn it into a giant iPad on a stand with everything sealed.

  The 21" iMac has been sealed since the last redesign. Only the 27" model has upgradable RAM with an access panel.

  
• Reply 8 of 13

  doggone Posts: 379member

  June 24, 2020 4:46AM

  Parallels was very useful when I needed to run windows to work at home.  Nowadays with a PC laptop for work I do not need it and don't have to pay the Parallels annual tax. 
  
  I probably won't buy another intel Mac because I don't need the compatibility.  Even if I did, my current 2016 MBP could be good for another 4-5 years.  By then the Apple Silicon could run several OSes in parallel without breaking into a sweat.  Intel on the other hand could still be trying to get 4nm fab to work  
  
  My biggest issue is that my old rMBP will not be able to upgrade to Big Sur.  That took over as my media server and so its days are numbered if that functionality is lost in a year or two.

  
• Reply 9 of 13

  commentzilla Posts: 725member

  June 24, 2020 11:42PM

  I haven't used bootcamp for years. I'd be fine with VM emulation for basic PC support and cross platform development testing as long as its fluid.
• Reply 10 of 13

  anome Posts: 1,533member

  June 28, 2020 8:19PM

  maltz said:

  anome said:

  I'm old enough to remember Soft Windows running on a PowerMac 6100/60. Not the greatest experience, but with surprising performance for total x86 emulation. (At the time I was working with actual Windows machines that made it look positively speedy.)
  
  Can the Apple Silicon succeed where PPC nearly did 25 years ago? Seems plausible, but doubtful.
  

  
  

  The PowerMac 6100 had an optional DOS compatibility card that had a bonafide 486 system-on-a-card.  Are you sure that's not what you were using that had passable performance?  Because none of the purely software solutions I ever tried were really usable for anything than just to play with.
  

  
  

  That said, the CPU is a lot smaller part of a machine's overall performance today than it was 20-25 years ago.  But mostly, I would be very surprised if Windows-on-Mac is soon to be a thing of the past, especially when Rosetta 2 is inevitably retired, other than maybe running the ARM version of Windows - which is really beside the point.
  

  Yes, I am sure. I definitely didn't have the 486 card. I did, some years later, get a G3 accelerator (thus keeping the thing alive way longer than needed), but never had the 486 card. If I had, the performance would have been much better than it was. I said it was "surprising" not "brilliant".
  
• Reply 11 of 13

  cgWerks Posts: 2,952member

  July 1, 2020 5:24AM

  I'd be surprised if Parallels or VMWare could stay in business if they don't come up with some kind of Windows solution. So, at least THEY are motivated.
  Maybe there could be some kind of TB3-based (or USB4 or whatever ports they put on them) x86 chip in a box solution, where all/most of the rest of the hardware could be in the Mac. I'm not sure how the GPU would be handled though, which is a concern to people like me running 'heavier' Windows apps (CAD/3D, etc.).
• Reply 12 of 13

  Marvin Posts: 15,324moderator

  July 1, 2020 10:08AM

  cgWerks said:

  I'd be surprised if Parallels or VMWare could stay in business if they don't come up with some kind of Windows solution. So, at least THEY are motivated.
  Maybe there could be some kind of TB3-based (or USB4 or whatever ports they put on them) x86 chip in a box solution, where all/most of the rest of the hardware could be in the Mac. I'm not sure how the GPU would be handled though, which is a concern to people like me running 'heavier' Windows apps (CAD/3D, etc.).

  Parallels/VMWare have virtualization products for servers. VMWare made $10b in the last year ( https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/VMW/vmware/revenue ). VMWare Fusion is $80. These companies have a few million Mac users so a good amount of revenue but those aren't purchased every year. If they sold 2 million copies per year, it would be $160m out of $10b. Their desktop virtualization is also used for Windows in businesses.
  
  No company would want to lose millions of customers but I imagine the Mac virtualization was a market they knew they could tap for some revenue growth because they had the capability. Losing it would be a relatively small loss to their revenue. I'm sure they will virtualize the ARM version of Windows (a Mac version depends on Microsoft selling licenses for Windows ARM) and if their binary translator works in the VM, it should be compatible with all Windows software when they get x64 support.
  
  I think buying a secondary PC (or keeping hold of an old Intel Mac) is going to be the more viable solution for people who depend on good Windows performance and is pretty cheap, even more so in a couple of years. Ideally buying a PC wouldn't be needed and it's pretty ridiculous that millions of Mac users still have to depend on Windows for certain things. Windows users aren't in the same situation hoping for Mac virtualization. It's well past time to get rid of this dependency.
  
  What we really need is for more software to be ported to the Mac. Games can be ported by Apple paying for the ports. Take the top 100 games in the last 10 years and pay $1m per port, put them in Apple Arcade and make the Apple TV fast enough to run them with enough storage (128GB SSD maybe). Then there would be games like Tomb Raider in there running at 1080p and the box is under $200, which significantly undercuts every console vendor.
  
  Once the Mac moves to Apple Silicon, that gets rid of Intel's poor quality GPUs that make up the majority of Mac users and this will mean nearly 20 million gaming capable GPUs shipping every year, a lot of those to students with Macbook Airs. That creates a more significant platform for game publishers. Software developers don't have any preference for Windows, it's just the biggest platform. With a big enough platform for any given software type, it will be profitable to target it.

  edited July 2020
• Reply 13 of 13

  cgWerks Posts: 2,952member

  July 6, 2020 2:15AM

  Marvin said:
  No company would want to lose millions of customers but I imagine the Mac virtualization was a market they knew they could tap for some revenue growth because they had the capability. Losing it would be a relatively small loss to their revenue.

  Yeah, fair point. I knew about VMWare and the corporate world, but didn't know if Parallels is as tied to corporate.
  
  

  Marvin said:
  I think buying a secondary PC (or keeping hold of an old Intel Mac) is going to be the more viable solution for people who depend on good Windows performance and is pretty cheap, even more so in a couple of years. Ideally buying a PC wouldn't be needed and it's pretty ridiculous that millions of Mac users still have to depend on Windows for certain things. Windows users aren't in the same situation hoping for Mac virtualization. It's well past time to get rid of this dependency.

  
  What we really need is for more software to be ported to the Mac.

  The main issue, is that I really like working with the 'PC' in a window within my Mac environment, at least when possible. Then, secondarily, not having to have two different computers with keyboards and mice/trackpads, and other peripherals. While my monitor can easily switch inputs, that is harder to do with the other stuff, just physically.
  
  As for porting (I've mentioned in other threads, but can't remember if here or not), some of the apps we use I just doubt that will ever happen. For example, I use Autodesk Revit, and the developers of that seem to have their hands full just trying to keep up with adding industry features. They can't even seem to find time to keep the interface consistent between features of the software (as I assume they were gathered over time, or done by different teams, etc.). I doubt they'd even consider doing a port, unless the Mac would bring such a substantial benefit that the user-base strongly demanded it (and, by that, I mean the whole PC industry is enamored enough with what Apple has done, that PC users are clamoring for it too).