VMX option to disable use of XSAVE instruction under Big Sur

[haralds]

I am running Big Sur on "unsupported" hardware - a Mac Pro 5,1. With updated graphics and WiFi/BLE it is actually running without patches,

To avoid KEXTs VMware 12 is using some extended instructions  like XSAVE under Big Sur. Parallels still allows using it with KEXTs and works fine right now.

Is there a VMX parameter to disable this?

monitor.allowLegacyCPU = "true" does not do it.

[JohnD0406]

feinberj - I'm very familiar with OpenCore, and am running it as well.  What you don't seem to understand is that Apple has checks in place that look at what machine you're running to determine if your machine is supported by the OS update.  All OpenCore is doing is spoofing the Board ID to make it look like a different machine, therefore it's on the "supported" list and thus you can install the new OS.  It's not magically adding features to chips.

XSAVE is not a "flag" - it's a function built into the microcode of the CPU.  Nothing can change that fact.  As for Parallels, yes, they give you the choice of using the Parallels hypervisor, or the Apple hypervisor.  The Apple hypervisor works just fine, which is why I'm calling BS on VMware telling us it's Apple's fault - it's not.  VMware developers chose to use that CPU function, and the support engineers have no idea - why would they - they don't write the code.  The funny thing is that if this were ANY other piece of software, VMware would be removing XSAVE, because it's not supported in Rosetta2 on M1 Mac's (which is why games that were using it, have removed it as well).

Write to VMware support - this is a user forum, and nobody reading this has the power to make any changes.  I don't care anymore - I've moved on to Parallels, and it's SOOO much faster than Fusion was.  I'd have never known what I was missing had it not been for XSAVE, so thank you, VMware - I'm better off in the end.

[JohnD0406]

haralds - I've run the Apple hypervisor in Parallels with both system extensions (default), and kernel extensions (requires editing XML config to allow this - "UseKextless").  Both work fine.  Further proof XSAVE is a VMware choice, not an Apple choice.

[themotoman]

JohnD,

I was looking for a place to get support on VMware's website and they give you a long list of items to choose from, none of which are VMware Fusion or Workstation.  When I figure out how to get support on Fusion, I will bring this issue up with them.

In the meantime, I feel like I'm not communicating well with you with regards to my argument that VMware tech specs do indeed say they support the 2010-2012 Mac Pro.  I'm at the point of just making a point, not trying to be an ass or anything.  I'm pasting-in the screen shot again.

Keep these points in mind.

1. Since Apple does not officially support anything past Mojave on the classic Mac Pro (have to use OpenCore or something else) and the fact that Fusion 12 will not install on Mojave, then the 2010-2012 Mac Pro should not be listed at all in the Fusion Tech Specs.  It's a non-starter.
2.  The Tech Specs explicitly call out the 2010 & 2012 Mac Pros with the appropriate 6-core CPUs (Westmere) and says they are supported.
3. The software section says it supports Macs with Catalina and Big Sur.

If this doesn't indicate that it supports a 2010-2012 running Catalina and Big Sur, then I don't know what does.

[JohnD0406]

OK - Final post. VMware Fusion is a memory for me now, so I'm wasting time even replying. We can interpret specs our own way, and agree to disagree, but I'll be removing my post notification from this chain going forward. If Vmware change their mind and remove XSAVE, I'm sure it'll be big news across all the forums, but I won't be holding my breath.

"Fusion 12 supports Macs with macOS 11.0 Big Sur and macOS 10.15 Catalina" <-- Since the 5,1 cannot run either OS, it shouldn't even be listed as compatible with Fusion 12, however VMware were nice to us with Catalina, but that ended with Big Sur. I bet they're regretting supporting an unsupported OS configuration now. I read their statement in quotes as "any machine capable of running these OS's". Your interpretation seems to be connecting several dots to create the version of the story that works for you. In any case, if you purchased Fusion 12, you can argue your refund based on that. I hope you're either running Catalina or Parallels, as Fusion in Big Sur will never work.

[laireeboi]

Sad. I will be dumping vmware too --  and i have bought multiple copies of every version of it that has come out for years... Not the first time i have bought a license only to find out that it does not work like they say it does and have to revert back to an older os... Very un-professional, misleading and a waste of money for an unusable license...

[ColoradoMarmot]

Are you on an unsupported OS / hardware stack?  If so, then expecting support isn't realistic.  If Apple won't support it, Fusion won't either.

[laireeboi]

Yet Parallels does; so whatever man. When the moss covers this mac virtualization project because better options exist you will know why… there are many, many users in this space that run these machines because they offer immense value for the money. My box is still worth a ton of money because of the 5 SSD’s i put in it…

[Dewdman42]

Another 5, 1 user here running OpenCore and Monterey.  Just found out I can't use VMware.  is there an older version of VMWare fusion that will work on Monterey without XSAVE?

[Technogeezer]

No. Older versions of Fusion before Fusion 12 use legacy macOS kernel extensions. Those extensions have not been tested on or updated for Big Sur and later. There are many reports of people that have tried and they don’t work. 

[JohnD0406]

"Legacy kernel extensions"? Kernel extensions still work fine in Monterey 12.4 - I'm using plenty of software that requires kernel extensions. Even Parallels gives you a choice of system or kernel extensions. Even if you couldn't use the old Fusion KEXTs in macOS, you could still inject them with OpenCore. If anyone tests that, I'd be curious to hear the results, but I've moved on to Parallels and couldn't be happier with the VM UI speed boost.

[Technogeezer]

i did not say that kernel extensions could not be loaded. They can. But Apple considers kernel extensions as deprecated technology ((which is why the term “legacy” appears) and has already started to restrict their usage (for example there are hoops you need to jump through in order for Monterey to load them) 

Because of this VMware stopped the development and use of kexts on Big Sur and later with Fusion 12. You might be able to force load older Fusion kexts but you are diving into an even more unsupported and unsupportable waters. Never tested and never updated for Big Sur and later. 

Not telling you not to do it, but you will get no help here or from VMware if you do. Discussions of trying to run Fusion on unsupported configurations is frowned upon by the moderators in this forum. 

if that means you go to Parallels, then so be it. 

[JohnD0406]

This entire thread, along with several others, are primarily about running Fusion on unsupported machines/configurations. The 5,1 Mac Pro's final supported OS was Mojave, yet OpenCore (and others) allow Catalina, Big Sur, and Monterey to run fine. Those running unsupported OS's on these machines became painfully aware of VMware's move to system extensions with Fusion 12 requiring XSAVE, which the Westmere CPU's don't have.

Where VMware went wrong is trying to blame Apple for the use of XSAVE in their hypervisor. This is disproven by running Parallels and selecting the Apple hypervisor, which works fine in Big Sur and Monterey on Westmere CPU's. Therefore, XSAVE is not in Apple's hypervisor, but rather in Fusion itself.

I think it goes without saying that if you run unsupported software, on an unsupported OS, on an unsupported machine, you're very much on your own. But, you can still post on forums and get support from the community. It's that community that even makes this possible via OpenCore/OCLP, SurPlus, MonteRand, AVXpel, etc.

With that said, it was a bad PR decision to use XSAVE (and then blame Apple for it). Of course VMware has every right to do so, and more. It just got a lot of negative PR from everyone in the Mac Pro community, and caused a lot of people to jump ship and use the competitor's product. VMware is a large company, and Fusion is only one product, so maybe they won't notice the loss of customers. They also made the bad PR decision to say they won't be supporting M1, then change their minds (likely due to Microsoft heading in the ARM direction as well). Now they have some catching up to do (UI, TPM, Win11, etc.). Maybe they'll make some better decisions under the new management.

[ColoradoMarmot]

They never said they wouldn't support the M1 - to the contrary, they've said from the beginning that they would.

What they wouldn't do is violate the Microsoft license agreement to support Windows on M1.  Can't blame them for that - it'd put a multi-billion dollar business at risk.

[JohnD0406]

Supporting it, and providing the installer, are two different things. Anyone can sign up for a Windows Insider account, download Win10/Win11 ARM, and install it in Parallels or Fusion (it does work in Fusion, for now, although Fusion doesn't have a vTPM option (yet?)). It's obviously not an issue, considering Parallels even provides the download link when setting up a new VM, making Win11 easy to install. I assume you still need to log into your Windows Insider account to download the image, but I don't use AS yet so haven't tried it myself.

https://oofhours.com/2022/02/26/m1-mac-virtualization-parallels-desktop-vs-vmware-fusion/

[ColoradoMarmot]

VMWare couldn't download and legally install it in order to develop the code to support it.  Getting the bits and running them in a compliant manner are not the same thing.

There is currently no legal way to run Windows ARM on non-OEM hardware - the EULA is pretty darn clear on that.  Parallels has chosen to ignore that because without windows virtualization on M1 their company would be at risk without it.  VMWare chose to honor the license agreement because to do otherwise would risk their entire enterprise virtualization business.

They've hinted that they're working on better support for Windows 11, so maybe something has changed license wise....there were rumors of an exclusivity deal with Qualcomm, which might have expired.  We should know in July.

Don't get me wrong...I've been disappointed in the slow pace of updates too (especially with the Linux bug).  But the windows situation is one that I understand.

[texter65]

looks like ill be dumping VMware and moving to virtual box (free) or Parallels (paid) that both work with open core, osx Monterey on 2012 Mac Pro, dam shame