4 ms·
> It lacks the graphical interface of VirtualBox On macOS, UTM bridges that gap. It's also compatible with the native virtualisation stack which makes for ext
by cassianoleal 3y ago
> It lacks the graphical interface of VirtualBox
On macOS, UTM bridges that gap.
It's also compatible with the native virtualisation stack which makes for extremely speedy VMs (boots in literally 1-2s, great performance overall - except for some lag on the GUI).
- mieses 3y agoI tried to run Win XP on UTM on MacOS x64 about a year ago. it worked but it was many, many, (1000x) times slower than virtualbox or parallels. I didn't want to dig into it after wasting 2 hours. internet comments indicated that UTM is slower but hid the truth of how much slower it is. UTM doesn't work.
- cassianoleal 3y agoI've only run Windows (and not XP) on this a couple times so I can't comment on that much. I have run x86 Win10 on UTM on an M2 Mac and didn't have performance issues but in fairness I didn't actually do much with it - mostly accessing thumb drives formatted with NTFS. I do regularly run arm64 Linux on it though, and it's been quite stellar for that use case.
- mobiuscog 3y ago"great performance" is not a phrase to consider if you need to run x86 code on arm chips. Even with Rosetta 2 and the latest virtualization kit, unless you're running all arm code, it's so painfully slow. (this also applies to any mac container solutions)
- cassianoleal 3y agoYou can't run x86 code under the native virtualisation stack, so you're arguing against a strawman.