when opening SilentKnight in the host macOS, without the VM running.
I then examined the Signposts written by macOS during that period of less than twenty seconds, e.g.
Once it had downloaded the information it required, I moved its window on the screen. I then opened my app SilentKnight at one second past the minute (e.g. I quit all open apps apart from the Finder. The software tool which I’m using to obtain performance measurements from macOS is my own RouteMap, which analyses the many Signposts written to the unified log by macOS sub-systems. Parallels does run very nicely in Catalina too, but because that’s still in beta, I felt it best not to try measuring performance there just yet. I’m looking at Parallels Desktop 15 hosted on macOS Mojave 10.14.6, and running the same macOS in its VM. To investigate this, I’ve been using my normal desktop Mac, a base model iMac Pro with an 8-core Intel Xeon W running at 3.2 GHz, 32 GB of memory, and a Radeon Pro Vega 56 graphics card and its 8 GB of memory. Will your VM run like an old Intel Core Duo iMac, and be almost unusable? This article looks at some answers to that question, using performance measurements built into macOS rather than artificial benchmarks. One major concern with any form of software virtualisation is how it will perform.
If you need to retain access to key 32-bit apps, or anything else which won’t run in Catalina, a VM running Mojave or earlier is a highly practical solution, and very straightforward to set up using the latest Parallels Desktop 15. It’s a standard tool for security researchers, and for many developers, but of little advantage to others – until Catalina drops support for 32-bit software, that is. Before the arrival of Catalina, relatively few Mac users needed to run an older version of macOS in a Virtual Machine (VM).
0 kommentar(er)
