KB 84273 in macbook pro M1

[rasikara]

macOS Monterey V 12.0.1
Chip Apple M1

When I was trying to install

(1).

VMware-Fusion-e.x.p-18656771_arm64.dmg,

I got this error message

This virtual machine cannot be powered on because it requires the X86 machine architecture, which is incompatible with this Arm machine architecture host.   (See KB-84273.)

(2) Next, 

VMware-Fusion-12.2.1-18811640_x86

I got this error message. 

This version of VMware Fusion is for Intel-based Macs, but is being run on an Apple silicon based Mac via Rosetta-2.

(See KB-84273)

Could you please anyone help me to install this in my M1 MacBook. 

[ColoradoMarmot]

There is an ongoing problem with people not bothering to read the preview guide and follow those instructions and then coming to the forum with questions that are clearly covered in the documentation.

Intel guests (the OP's question) will not ever work on an M1 machine.  That's covered in both the preview guide and in the error message itself.  There's no reason to ask for a fix in the forum, because there isn't one.  

Maybe the error message needs to be: "Just like you can't put diesel fuel in a gas engine, you can't run an intel guest on an M1 host.  Get an ARM64 guest instead (but not Windows, because Microsoft won't license it for use as a guest on a Mac).'  but that seems a bit wordy to me 🙂

[treee]

The message doesn't just pop-up when you are trying to run an x86 OS on your ARM64 Mac but also when you run an ARM64 OS on your ARM64 Mac in some specific cases (aka it is a bug). I understand the frustration of people not reading manuals but that still is not an excuse to approach things this way, it is just not professional.

[Technogeezer]

---

@treee wrote:

The message doesn't just pop-up when you are trying to run an x86 OS on your ARM64 Mac but also when you run an ARM64 OS on your ARM64 Mac in some specific cases (aka it is a bug).

---

I don't work for VMware, but I would be interested in the situations where this occurs so we can provide more specific feedback to VMware and to other users so that they may be able to avoid the situation.

I've installed almost a dozen various arm64 Linux distributions and have not seen this message pop up once. I've been in the business long enough, though, to know that just because many of us have never seen a problem doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. 

That's not to say that I haven't encountered strangeness from time to time. And it's mostly depended on how mature the arm64 distribution is. This arm64/aarch64 thingy is something where we're all on the leading edge. Some things that didn't work quite right in one release I'd find fixed on the next spin. For example, the RHEL 9 Beta Update 1 for ARM64 required a bunch of hoops to be jumped through while reciting magic incantations to install. (ok a bit dramatic but you get my drift...) Update 2 fixed it and it installed cleanly "out of the box"

Do you have specifics on where this message popped up for you?

[treee]

What I did was download the aarch64 OpenSUSE Leap 15.3 version (the full dvd iso image). Then I added a new vm and used the "install from disc or image", added the downloaded dvd image. When you hit next you'll get an overview of the settings it made based on the dvd image. It will set the guest operating system to OpenSUSE. Upon saving that vm it will start it and return the KB-84273 error message.

To solve it I created a new vm again but this time select "create custom virtual machine" (it is below the previous mentioned disc option) and in the next step choose Linux > Other Linux 5.x kernel 64-bit ARM (the bottom option). Go through the other options but don't press the "finish" button at the end. Instead press the "customise settings" because we need to make it boot from the downloaded dvd image: open the cd/DVD drive settings, connect it to the vm and select the downloaded dvd image with the dropdown menu. If you then start the vm it will boot from the dvd image and let you install OpenSUSE Leap.

The Tech Preview guide does not mention OpenSUSE at all so no idea if it is officially supported or not. I have seen that both Leap and Tumbleweed work just fine. From the Linux distros I tested thus far I found these to be one of the easiest to use with the Tech Preview. I have seen that Fusion is not detecting it as being OpenSUSE so you can immediately select the "Other Linux" option; you'll have to because it doesn't show OpenSUSE (nor its enterprise sibling)...and that could be a hint. It also has newer versions of the software but it is a rolling release. 

Regarding RHEL 9.x: I tried Rocky and Alma Linux and noticed that those only seem to be working as of RHEL 9.x. Older versions don't even boot the install (it returns to grub). Out of all the Linux distros I tried Fedora seems to be the best. It is the only one that seems to have an actual final release that works and it works perfectly fine.

[Technogeezer]

---

@treee wrote:

Can you and your fellow VMware colleagues comply with the terms of use and refrain from making these kind of toxic comments. As a result the topic starter has now gone silent...

If you and your colleagues had bothered to read the topic start then one thing should have been noticed: the lack of information. Instead of the current hostility one could have simply asked to provide more information. There really is no excuse for the current behaviour.

So please, stop making assumptions and stop being hostile towards users. Ask more information when there clearly is hardly any info and try to push them in the right direction.

---

First, most of us here do not work for VMware. We're users just like you.

From a personal perspective, I admit from time to time I have to watch what I say for the reasons you give. People who post here may or may not have the experience we have in the industry and/or with Fusion as a product.  We have to recognize that and as you say, draw out information so that we can guide and educate. 

We have, though, seen a rash of posts recently where it doesn't look like posters have even taken the time to read the information (even within the same thread), or post simply "me too" types of questions with no context. It does get frustrating as most of us do this in our spare time and it does take time to have to repost the same information or ask for clarification. We're human too and sometimes we let the frustration get to us. That's not to condone a less than professional response though.  Take a deep breath, and then ask for information.

I also will admit that one weak point of these forums is the inability to pin a FAQ or "watch out for this" note so that it's always at the top of the forum.  It's sometimes tough to find those answers (which is why I wrote my guide- and I do hope it's helpful). I do wish there was one of those pinned posts that would help people formulate their questions and include information so we can help them.  

[Technogeezer]

The tech preview guide only listed distributions that VMware had experience with at the time of publication. And you are correct that OpenSUSE isn't on that list.

I haven't tried the OpenSUSE Leap distribution, but have had success with Tumbleweed.  I dropped the ISO onto the "Select the Installation Method" dialog, but then set the the Guest OS type to "Other Linux 5.x kernel 64-Bit ARM) as none of the SUSE distributions are on the list of Linux types.  

I'll give Leap a spin and see what I can find out. Not sure what kernel version they are using in Leap, but if it's not near 5.13 I can foresee issues.

And if you get a chance, try Tumbleweed. The latest snapshot contains a 5.16 kernel and lots of relatively current packages.  It's a lot easier in my mind to upgrade because they release a complete OS, utility, and stack in one "snapshot", upgraded whenever you want with "zypper dup".

I've also found that RHEL 8 ARM64 distros have the issues you describe with the virtual hardware that Fusion provides. I attribute that to the maturity of the underlying kernels. But as you note, RHEL9 and even CentOS 9 Stream (along with Fedora 34 and 35) work very well. For someone approaching the tech preview, I would start with the Linux distros that I note in my documents.

[Technogeezer]

I've reproduced that issue with Leap. It does appear that whatever the tech preview is discovering with the "easy install" method of simply dropping the ISO onto the dialog doesn't work as expected. It doesn't ask what the OS type is, it just tells you that it's an OpenSUSE operating system and then skips into where to save the VM. It's almost like the "easy install" implementation on the Tech Preview has vestiges of Fusion on Intel, and because it sees an OpenSUSE Leap that it knows about on Intel, it builds a VMX file with virtual devices that would normally be used on Intel VMs.  Some of which (seems like the LSI scsi controller) are not implemented with the Tech Preview. My guess is that the "install from disk or image" suffers from the same problem.

The workaround of building your own custom VM (which populates the VMX file with devices that the tech preview does support) builds a virtual hardware platform that will allow Leap to boot and to install.

I'll add this to my guide to assist others, if you don't mind.

Tumbleweed does not suffer from this behavior. If you drag the Tumbleweed ISO onto the new virtual machine dialog and click "next" it asks you for the virtual machine OS type. It does not automatically populate it like Leap did.  And the installer boots and installs as expected with no error message.

[guptill_78]

To the mod suggesting they just buy a PC... C'mon.  OP wants to run windows on his new shiny Mac.  Not just run windows on any old PC...or else they wouldn't be here looking for this specific product's help.

[Technogeezer]

Deleted as the reply was off-topic…

[treee]

It is getting offtopic now but for brevity: I was actually using Tumbleweed before but managed to hose it by doing a zypper dup (which I still need to fix) and thought I might give Leap a go as well.

The ARM64 versions of RHEL 8.x and the like (Rocky, Alma, etc.) are know to have issues, RHEL 9.x should solve these. For those interested, more info can be found here: https://communities.vmware.com/t5/Fusion-for-Apple-Silicon-Ideas/Support-for-RHEL-9-ARM-guests/idi-p...

I had a quick read-through through your document. Looks like solid FAQ and first place to look for answers. Perhaps VMware can draft up a (friendly) canned response with a link to it. Hopefully that takes out the frustration of topics like these whilst still being friendly and helpful.

[ColoradoMarmot]

Right now, there's no way to run Windows on M1 under the current microsoft license.  If someone needs to do so if a compliant manner (e.g. for a business), then buying a PC (or an Intel Mac) is the only option.

So to confirm another part of the thread: the specific can't run an x86 architecture guest message pops up when running OpenSUSE for ARM64?

[RDPetruska]

---

@treee wrote:

Can you and your fellow VMware colleagues comply with the terms of use and refrain from making these kind of toxic comments. As a result the topic starter has now gone silent...

If you and your colleagues had bothered to read the topic start then one thing should have been noticed: the lack of information. Instead of the current hostility one could have simply asked to provide more information. There really is no excuse for the current behaviour.

<snip>

So please, stop making assumptions and stop being hostile towards users. Ask more information when there clearly is hardly any info and try to push them in the right direction.

---

Sorry if I came across as harsh - but was replying to the "me too" user who was asking "did you ever find a solution to this?"  CLEARLY, if they *READ* the replies to the OP's post, they would see and hopefully understand that there IS no solution - and will NEVER be a solution to the OP question of "I'm trying to run my old x86-based virtual machines on my M1 Mac".   Also, if YOU read the replies you would see that OP has received not only an answer to his original question, but also the follow up question of how to run Windows VM.  So of course, OP has gone silent - he received the answers to his questions!

[treee]

And thus the hostility continuous...

[RDPetruska]

---

@guptill_78 wrote:

To the mod suggesting they just buy a PC... C'mon.  OP wants to run windows on his new shiny Mac.  Not just run windows on any old PC...or else they wouldn't be here looking for this specific product's help.

---

Just offering valid legitimate options here.  If you are a business and have a workload which MUST run on Windows (of which there are thousands out there in the world), then it only makes sense to have, at the very least, one Windows PC computer on which to run your critical software!  Plus, it IS a fact that PCs are cheaper than Macs.

If it's a home user who purchased a Mac and just wants to run Windows on it in addition to Apple's OS, then sure, that would be overkill.  Again, just offering valid options... which are 100% licensed and legal, I might add - which *at this moment in time*, running the Windows ARM Insider builds on an M1 Macintosh machine *are not*.  Not saying it doesn't work... just saying that it isn't legitimate at this time.

[RDPetruska]

---

@treee wrote:

And thus the hostility continuous...

---

No hostility at all... just wishing users would READ before WRITING.  Or at the very least, give enough information to help all of us answer their questions.

[treee]

A statement that "it is a fact that a Mac is more expensive than a PC" is rather bold and can even be nonsense. It depends on the specs, the operating system used, how much time you need to spend on managing the device (which would be both hardware and software), etc. Lots of companies that show that Macs are either just as expensive or cheaper than the PC counterpart. The reality is that not everyone is able to use only non-Windows software.

Buying a PC is just as much an option as not using Windows at all. It still is a rather rude way of responding to someone which is what makes your messages come across as being hostile. Might want to pay attention to how you word things if you don't mean them to be like that.

[ColoradoMarmot]

Right now if someone needs to use Windows software, and only has an M1 Mac, then their only license-compliant option is to purchase a PC.  Period.  Cost is irrelevant, as is any product that may allow it to be done technically.  There's no getting around the license agreement which only allows it to be run on supported hardware, and the only supported hardware is non-Apple OEM.

Hopefully the rumors are right, that there's a Qualcomm exclusive agreement that will expire soon, and this will all change.  But until/unless Microsoft changes their EULA/TOS/License/Supported Hardware information, there just isn't any option.

Well, to be fair, there is one.  Which is to run it in an unsupported, non-compliant manner.  That's a risk/choice that a business' legal department would have to make.

[WNickels]

I did this same thing with the Leap 15.3.  I successfully installed the OS and rebooted to the startup boot screen (UI), where it promptly froze at the first CLI screen after the boot choice.  Which step did I miss?

[Technogeezer]

I just installed Leap 15.3-3 from a fresh copy of the download offline image. Note that I did not choose to update the repositories on install - I wanted to see if this version installed without having the possibility of an unwanted update at install time. I installed a KDE Plasma desktop.

A kernel version 5.3.18-150300-59.49-default was installed, which seems to boot to graphical login fine.

However, the very first update after installation is offering to install a new kernel - it looks to be 5.3.18-150300-59.60 - This does not boot. My guess is that this kernel contains the kernel security fixes that are causing boot failures across the board from other distros as they pick them up. 

I had to choose the older kernel from the GRUB menu in order to get the VM to boot after the update.

[Technogeezer]

I wouldn't hold my breath for Boot Camp on M1 Macs coming soon. That  video is now 4+ months old and nothing has changed. Microsoft still refuses to support Windows for ARM on Apple Silicon. Until that changes, we can only wish. And then it depends on Apple's willingness to prioritizing writing all the drivers and boot code for Windows. Just because they can doesn't mean they will.

I'd like to be proven wrong, though. I wonder if the topic will come up at Apple's WWDC in a couple of months?

IMO - You have a better chance of Microsoft blessing Windows 11 ARM for virtualization solutions.