VMware sees no need to Arm itself for multi-architecture multi-cloud

For years, VMware's strategy has been to run any app in any environment. But even as hyperscalers bet on Arm-powered servers, and device makers wrestle Arm CPUs into myriad machines that run everywhere, the virtualization giant doesn't see the need to bring its stack to the architecture. That's despite VMware having revealed …

[CowHorseFrog]

THis article is nothing more than a few bloodhards making a silly presentation with words that basically mean nothing. How about real technology from real people that actually ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So that leaves Apple users of VM's out in the cold then?

With El fruity going all ARM'y where does that leave those who want to spin up a VM on their M1/M2/M3 Mac's?

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I guess the jury is still out on that one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: So that leaves Apple users of VM's out in the cold then?

>> With El fruity going all ARM'y where does that leave those who want to spin up a VM on their M1/M2/M3 Mac's?

With one of the many alternatives? UTM? Parallels? Or VMware Fusion (which supports ARM)?

I doubt anyone really misses ESXi for Apple Silicon Macs. It was a niche product when Macs were still intel based, with very limited support by VMware.

Besides, mac OS support in ESXi died with ESXi 8.0 (7.0 is the last version which still supports mac OS as guest OS, and that support stopped with mac OS 12 (Monterey). There is no support for mac OS 13 (Ventura), or the upcoming mac OS 14 (Sonoma).

There is no point for ESXi on Apple Silicon Macs.

[Colin Bull 1]

Same old ?

Intel have a history of paying to eliminate the competition. Perhaps they are still managing to do that. Itanic failed even though Intel manged to nobble Tru64, HPUX and others by doing a deal with Carly. Who knows what they are up to now. I wonder if any under the counter deals are happening with TSMC to reduce AMD's capacity?