Who cares what Apple's about to announce? It owes us a macOS x86 virtual appliance for non-Mac computers
- Reference: 1600169353
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/09/15/death_to_hackintoshes/
- Source link:
Apple has famously resisted macOS being virtualized on computers other than its own, but now it's engineered a mass-extinction event for Intel Macs [1]by shifting to Arm , that policy should change. We should be able to officially virtualize macOS on whatever suitable host hardware we have to hand. The operating system's fine print right now permits up to two virtual instances of macOS per Apple Mac machine with macOS installed. Non-Macs are prohibited from booting macOS, virtual or otherwise.
Your humble hack thinks it is time to change that policy because it is inevitable that a small-but-significant number of macOS users run applications that are tightly coupled to Apple's Intel-powered hardware and will be a colossal pain in the rear to migrate to anything else. They can continue to run those software suites in their virtual macOS appliance on whatever suitable PC they have. There will also be some people who have their own special reasons for just wanting x86 macOS machines for the long haul.
Yes, those users can stock up on Intel Macs while they are still sold. And yes, Apple has promised brilliant translation of apps built for x86-powered Macs with the [2]Rosetta environment on Arm. But Intel Macs won't last or be available forever, and users of software that just won't do well under Rosetta deserve another option.
That option is a macOS virtual appliance that runs on Hyper-V, Linux KVM, ESXi, Parallels, VirtualBox, VMware Workstation, and what have you, on whatever suitable hardware you've got.
I'm totally happy if these appliances won't run on future computers more powerful than today's Macs. While the idea of macOS on a hypothetical future four-socket PC brandishing a fistful of 32-core i9s sounds like fun, I understand that Apple will need primacy for its Arm-powered products.
I'm also happy without long-term security support for these appliances. Folks who need this kind of VM will know they're headed for strange places, but also know that a properly isolated virtual machine can mitigate some security concerns. Those among you who buy one as a curiosity will need to go into the purchase with eyes wide open.
Some of you may at this point suggest DIY x86 Macs, aka Hackintoshes, as an alternative. It's certainly possible to create a Hackintosh but they are a faff to get running reliably, in my opinion. They're also problematic because Apple's T&Cs for macOS only permit the software to run on actual Macs, not whatever x86 box you've built for the job.
I don't think Apple has anything to lose by selling macOS virtual appliances because I expect that Arm Macs will be exceptional and a desirable upgrade. The VM will have limited appeal, but those who want or need it will adore it.
So go on, Apple. Give us a virtual Mac for the ages. Think Different and change your policy. And once you see how much it's appreciated, feel free to do a macOS appliance for something like the Raspberry Pi, too. ®
Get our [3]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/23/apple_armed_for_x86_rebellion/
[2] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple_silicon/about_the_rosetta_translation_environment
[3] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Right now there is a huge range of Intel Macs available. In a year's time, there will be a large range of Intel Macs available. For obvious reasons, Apple will start replacing the low end Macs first and work its way up, because they have to build powerful ARM processors first. On the other hand, people requiring VMs usually need powerful hardware, so the hardware they needed will be available for the longest time.
And if you really need an Intel computer, Citrix or something similar should be able to display the output of any Intel computer on a Mac screen, no matter what the processor is. Citrix can either display the whole Intel screen in a window or on the Mac screen, or can display Windows windows mixed with MacOS windows; you often don't even notice it's not a native window. Usually the Windows computer is a big server far away, but it might as well be a little box connected through a cable.
> Apple will start replacing the low end Macs first and work its way up, because they have to build powerful ARM processors first.
They've already got powerful ARM processors that out benchmark Intel processors - that's the reason Apple are changing: Intel's laptop processors simply can't compete with Apple's own.
The lifespan of a Mac is a good 5 years even for professionals. There will be Intel Macs running this legacy x86 software in 2026.
By that time I would truly hope that most of that software was available in ARM form, even the most laggard software team should have achieved that.
If not, then the Apple ARM chips of 2025 will likely run the software in emulation at even better performance than today's emulation, and it will likely exceed today's native performance.
So we now are down to a very small set of performance critical, unmaintained x86 Apple MacOS software. I guess these users will have to get a few spare machines whilst they can.
Vendors
Software vendors need to get on the stick... I've heard it a million times, Apple screwed us! But when put in perspective, it's the software developer\vendor that needs to stay current. Time marches on, and so does technology. I've had a handful of software that won't run on Win10... can we turn that argument around then??
Running an OS that can only work on a single vendors hardware...
Kinda sounds like it was the users own stupidity that left them in this position.
This was encountered and solved in the early 80's. People should pick up a history book and *learn*.