The Best VM option for macOS Guest?

[mattspace]

Does anyone have recommendations from their own experience of which of the VM options gives the best performance for running legacy macOS systems on a modern macOS host.

I'm only looking to run Intel guest on Intel host right now. I tried Fusion recently, but with a Yosemite guest it was close to unusable, feeling like it had no UI acceleration etc.

Had I configured it incorrectly? The performance was nowhere near as snappy as remote desktop connecting to a Yosemite-running 2009 Mac Mini.

I need to be able to run legacy systems from at least as far back as Yosemite, and forward to Big Sur, and those systems can't be modernised (reasons), so this is an alternative to ever-dwindling secondhand hardware.

Main criteria are that the UI is fluid enough to be able to move things on screen, interact with menus etc, and that USB devices plugged in to the host can be made available to the guest (eg iPhones etc).

Thanks.

 

[joevt]

I can run 10.5.8 Leopard to 13.4.1 Ventura on my Intel Skylake Mac using Parallels Desktop for the Mac. I haven't tried Sonoma yet. I couldn't get 10.4.11 Tiger booted in Parallels but it works in Virtual Box with some modifications. https://github.com/ranma42/TigerOnVBox

As for performance - I think it's good enough for most tasks. Maybe not YouTube. The menus are very fast. I think moving a window in Parallels is about the same speed as moving a window in Screen Sharing.app.

Installing Parallels Tools into the VM allows the Parallels display resolution to be automatically changed. It might have some 2D acceleration as well.

I don't know if there are USB devices that Parallels doesn't support. I connected an old iPod and some USB storage devices.

 

[sracer]

Running any version of Mac OS in a VM is not going to be anywhere near as snappy as remote desktop connecting to a system running Mac OS natively.

I have High Sierra running in an Oracle VirtualBox VM with great success on my ThinkPad P15S Gen 2 running Windows 10. Performance is surprisingly snappy but there are minor issues like not being able to run Pixelmator Classic because it can directly access the graphics adapter.

If you haven't tried Oracle's VirtualBox yet, I suggest giving that a try.

 

[Boyd01]

I run very old (c. 2009) versions of VectorWorks and Strata3d CX in a MacOS Mountain Lion 4gb Parallels virtual machine on my 2018 Mini (6-core i7 with 64gb). VectorWorks is a professional CAD app and Strata is a photorealistic 3d program. I used these heavily in my theatrical design career before retiring in 2011. Don't need them often now but still want access to my old files and they would cost around $1500 each to update.

This works surprisingly well and performance is noticeably faster than it ever was running them natively on my old Macs (such as a 2008 15" MBP). Also run FileMaker Pro in both MacOS Sierra and Mountain Lion VM's in Parallels. Again, it works as well as the original machines (if not better). I had a hard time setting this up initially, couldn't find an installer for these old operating systems that Parallels would recognize (I found installers, but apparently they weren't what Parallels needed). Finally got it working by creating a VM from a bootable clone of an old backup, then removing the files I didn't want.

Really surprised me how well the 3d modeller worked, no graphics issues and rendering was very fast. Also no graphics issues with VectorWorks. No MacOS UI lag or other issues, it really worked just like my old Macs. I have not tried using any VM's as new as Yosemite or Big Sur however. No experience with using peripherals, other than USB disks that worked seamlessly in the VM.

 

[Boyd01]

Running any version of Mac OS in a VM is not going to be anywhere near as snappy as remote desktop connecting to a system running Mac OS natively.

I'm sure there are a lot of variables, including the software package, the host Mac, the version of MacOS and the age of the old Mac. But, as I posted above, my experience is exactly the opposite of what you posted. For my software, the VM is much faster than the old native hardware.

 

[chrfr]

Does anyone have recommendations from their own experience of which of the VM options gives the best performance for running legacy macOS systems on a modern macOS host.

I'm only looking to run Intel guest on Intel host right now. I tried Fusion recently, but with a Yosemite guest it was close to unusable, feeling like it had no UI acceleration etc.

Had I configured it incorrectly? The performance was nowhere near as snappy as remote desktop connecting to a Yosemite-running 2009 Mac Mini.

The trouble is that none of the Intel virtualization platforms provide graphics acceleration for macOS guests so if the app you’re trying to use requires that, performance will be poor when virtualized. Otherwise VMware Fusion does the job fine for me.

 

[sracer]

I'm sure there are a lot of variables, including the software package, the host Mac, the version of MacOS and the age of the old Mac. But, as I posted above, my experience is exactly the opposite of what you posted. For my software, the VM is much faster than the old native hardware.

True. 👍 Implied in what I wrote was "all things being equal". A sloppy omission on my part. (unless you could read my mind in which case, that's on you. 😂)

 

[Boyd01]

Yeah, I'm running some very old software and the 2018 Mini hardware is much faster than the old Macs I used before. For the OP's needs, running Yosemite or Big Sur on more recent Macs, performance probably isn't as good.

 

[mattspace]

Thanks everyone for the responses so far. So is the consensus that VirtualBox, VMWare Fusion and Parallels are all likely to be much of a muchness when it comes to general UI responsiveness within the VM?

Or have any of them proven to be better for things like window dragging, menu open from click time etc?

I can try installing VMWare again and see if I had any settings badly configured, but it really seemed like trying to use a machine in Safe Mode full time, with seconds between action, and UI catchup.

 

[Boyd01]

What is "much of a muchness"?

 

[mattspace]

What is "much of a muchness"?

it's a British derived colloquialism generally used to mean more or less the same as each other

Though it's origins are more akin to "a lot, of a lot"

 

[joevt]

Thanks everyone for the responses so far. So is the consensus that VirtualBox, VMWare Fusion and Parallels are all likely to be much of a muchness when it comes to general UI responsiveness within the VM?

Or have any of them proven to be better for things like window dragging, menu open from click time etc?

I can try installing VMWare again and see if I had any settings badly configured, but it really seemed like trying to use a machine in Safe Mode full time, with seconds between action, and UI catchup.

VirtualBox is free. I think the others have free trial periods. So you should give each a try.
I guess you should try giving the VM half the CPU cores and half the memory of the host?
The VM itself should be stored on your fastest drive for best results. Mine are on a spinning HD though.
If your fastest drive is not large enough, maybe just keep the VM file on that and the virtual HD image elsewhere.

 

[Boyd01]

I guess you should try giving the VM half the CPU cores and half the memory of the host?

FWIW, with Parallels, you need the Pro version (subscription) if you want more than 16gb of RAM or more than 2 processors.

 

[Shirasaki]

I don't know if there are USB devices that Parallels doesn't support. I connected an old iPod and some USB storage devices.

Probably those niche industrial peripherals that needs Windows driver and uses special protocols.

 

[mattspace]

VirtualBox is free. I think the others have free trial periods. So you should give each a try.
I guess you should try giving the VM half the CPU cores and half the memory of the host?
The VM itself should be stored on your fastest drive for best results. Mine are on a spinning HD though.
If your fastest drive is not large enough, maybe just keep the VM file on that and the virtual HD image elsewhere.

Drive speed isn't really a concern - I have more than enough SSD space. I was just hoping to avoid the palava of trying to uninstall them if there was a clear "this is the best performance for old macOS versions" winner.

 

[mattspace]

OK, there must have been something wrong with my original setup because I just reinstalled Fusion, created a new High Sierra machine, gave it 4 cores and 24GB of Ram, and it's plenty fast enough - nice and snappy, a completely different experience to the last time I tried it.

So, I guess I found my solution. Thanks everyone for the input.