1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next 81 Replies Latest reply on Aug 26, 2016 3:41 PM by dlhotka Go to original post
      • 75. Re: Fusion's Future
        dlhotka Master

        I strongly suspect not :-).

         

        Parallels likes to release upgrades early in the OSX beta cycle - it gives them a reason to get cash flow early, then when Apple changes something (as they often do), they scramble to patch it.  VMWare tends to release later in the beta cycle to have a stable product.  Because Fusion is part of a larger family they're not chasing revenue the way parallels has to.

        • 76. Re: Fusion's Future
          xahare Novice

          dlhotka said

          "It's how OSX is built - there's no real way for Fusion (or any other virtualization system) to provide accelerated graphics.  MSFT builds windows with virtualization in mid - Apple doesn't."

           

          graphics performance for os x isnt bad in fusion. you can resize, full screen etc. its a bit choppy, and bound to low resolution in virtualbox, but workable if your just doing vagrant runs.

           

          That said, couldnt vmware or parallels just make an os x graphics driver? on the linux side, vmware made it easy by open sourcing their drivers. this is probably why wayland is already supported (aside from resizing windows)

          • 77. Re: Fusion's Future
            Mikero Master
            VMware Employees

            All graphics drivers for OSX/macOS need to be signed by Apple from an approved OEM.

            There are currently only 2 approved OEMs... nVidia and AMD...

            • 78. Re: Fusion's Future
              dlhotka Master

              *looks for the lines so I can read between*

              • 79. Re: Fusion's Future
                Mikero Master
                VMware Employees

                There's no lines here... Just saying it's more complicated than simply building it. Someone could invest hundreds of dev hours in drivers only to have Apple not let them be on the whitelist.

                • 80. Re: Fusion's Future
                  vmxmr Hot Shot

                  There's no lines here... Just saying it's more complicated than simply building it. Someone could invest hundreds of dev hours in drivers only to have Apple not let them be on the whitelist.

                   

                  Obviously VMware would want to get assurances that Apple would sign the drivers before VMware invests engineering effort into developing them. At the same time, if I were VMware, I would not want to be left out if a competitor had already started that process. The bottom line is that there is no way to know what VMware is doing, because they would never admit to getting any assurances from Apple, in case VMware cannot bring the drivers to fruition.

                  • 81. Re: Fusion's Future
                    dlhotka Master

                    Ahh, gotcha.

                     

                    No abstraction layer, and because they have a closed ecosystem, no incentive to support alternate hardware.

                    1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next