Hacker News Reader

> It lacks the graphical interface of VirtualBox

On macOS, UTM bridges that gap.

It's also compatible with the native virtualisation stack which makes for extremely speedy VMs (boots in literally 1-2s, great performance overall - except for some lag on the GUI).

View on HN

I tried to run Win XP on UTM on MacOS x64 about a year ago. it worked but it was many, many, (1000x) times slower than virtualbox or parallels. I didn't want to dig into it after wasting 2 hours. internet comments indicated that UTM is slower but hid the truth of how much slower it is. UTM doesn't work.

I've only run Windows (and not XP) on this a couple times so I can't comment on that much.

I have run x86 Win10 on UTM on an M2 Mac and didn't have performance issues but in fairness I didn't actually do much with it - mostly accessing thumb drives formatted with NTFS.

I do regularly run arm64 Linux on it though, and it's been quite stellar for that use case.

"great performance" is not a phrase to consider if you need to run x86 code on arm chips. Even with Rosetta 2 and the latest virtualization kit, unless you're running all arm code, it's so painfully slow.

(this also applies to any mac container solutions)

You can't run x86 code under the native virtualisation stack, so you're arguing against a strawman.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com