Re: VirtualBox
- Reply: Mark Millard : "Re: VirtualBox [and UTM/Parallels/VMWare/Hyper-V]"
- In reply to: Alex Samorukov : "Re: VirtualBox"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 01:15:11 UTC
On 5/19/23 06:42, Alex Samorukov wrote: > >>> >> >> For lack of available info, I naively tried booting the aarch64 disc1 >> ISO, which not surprisingly didn't work. Not even sure if this is the >> right approach, but it seems like the intuitive one the the average >> VirtualBox user. I think it would be ideal if the experience were the >> same as for x86. > > Just try UTM :) > > Again, VirtualBox is a road to nowhere - it emulates x86 on aarch. Of > course, performance will be terrible, as well as emulation quality. KVM > just works, and if you need UI - UTM works pretty well for me, at least. > And you will get near-native speed, as it is arm64 guest on arm64 host > which uses native macOS virtualisation framework. Thanks for the tip. I'm running on UTM now. Still no luck getting a display beyond 800x600, and bridged networking doesn't work, but I got port forwarding to work under the vlan config, so I can ssh into the VM. I mainly want something faster than my rock64 for testing FreeBSD ports on arm, so this serves my needs for the moment. I added a qemu check to desktop-installer so it's as user-friendly as it is for Parallels, VMWare, and Hyper-V now. -- Life is a game. Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.