3 ms·
Apple demoed Docker and Parallels at the Developer State of the Union, and has written a new Hypervisor.framework for the new Macs. I think it'll be fine (I'll
by easton 6y ago
Apple demoed Docker and Parallels at the Developer State of the Union, and has written a new Hypervisor.framework for the new Macs. I think it'll be fine (I'll be sure once VirtualBox gets working on it, with the amount of trouble they've had with the new Windows Hypervisor I hope it'll be faster).
- skrtskrt 6y agoDoes any of this mean that Docker for Mac (ARM) will be less of an insane resource hog?
- acdha 6y agoDocker for Mac isn’t on x86 so it seems likely it will continue not to be.
- KnobbleMcKnees 6y agoI thought they'd already confirmed that x86_64 virtualization won't be possible on Silicon? If so that rules out a significant number of development use cases.
- nottorp 6y agoWhat I've been able to find is that Rosetta will run 64 bit Intel apps, but that won't help the likes of Parallels. So there will be no way to run Windows/Intel in a VM? Or even Linux/Intel or older versions of Mac OS for that matter? That's bad.
- snowwrestler 6y agoWhat Apple has said is that you can't run existing x86 virtualization applications on top of Rosetta 2. So you can't take the copy of Parallels you have today and run it on Rosetta 2. Which make sense, since that would be running emulation on top of an emulation--likely to be super slow. Instead, what you will do is get a new version of x86 virtualization applications (like Parallels) that run directly on top of Apple Silicon--in other words, you use them instead of Rosetta 2, not on top of Rosetta 2. That's what easton is talking about, above.
- sgerenser 6y agoX86 virtualization on top of an x86 CPU is a fairly trivial task. Running the same on top of ARM at reasonable speeds is much more difficult. What makes you think Parallels will be able to pull it off anytime soon?