XSAVE keeps me from running any VM on Mac Pro 5,1

[Direwolf8]

I installed Fusion 12.2.3 on my Macintosh Pro 5,1 running Big Sur 11.2.3.
None of my existing VM's run, and I can't load a new one. I get the following error:

"The processor does not support XSAVE."

My Mac Pro has a Radeon RX 580 GPU installed. According to this article https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/2005196
the combination is supported.

I saw posts indicating that others had this problem over a year old, but haven't found a solution. How can this be fixed?

[bluefirestorm]

For Apple, the last supported macOS for Mac Pro 5,1 is High Sierra.
https://support.apple.com/kb/sp765?locale=en_US

Catalina, Big Sur require Mac Pro 2013 or newer for the Mac Pro line.
https://support.apple.com/kb/SP803?locale=en_US
https://support.apple.com/kb/sp833?locale=en_US

XSAVE is a CPU instruction. Mac Pro 5,1 CPUs (whether Nehalem or Westmere) does not have the XSAVE instruction. XSAVE is available from Intel Sandy Bridge generation of CPUs (the one after Westmere). So if the instruction is not available in the transistor circuitry of the CPU silicon there is nothing that can be done to magically bring it to life. You cannot upgrade to a Sandy Bridge CPU as they have different sockets to the Nehalem/Westmere CPUs.

[Technogeezer]

Also from the Fusion 12.2.3 release notes:

System Requirements

• Hardware

  Intel Mac models that support macOS 11.0 Big Sur and newer versions.

  • Mac models that support macOS 11.0 Big Sur - https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211238.

Given that Big Sur isn’t listed as supported by Apple on a 2010 Mac Pro (Mac Pro 5,1), I’m assuming you are using OpenCore Legacy Patcher to get Big Sur to run. Just because you can get it to run does not mean it’s supported by Apple or VMware or that the hardware has all the features needed by Fusion. And as  has noted, the supported Macs for Fusion 12 have a CPU instruction that Fusion needs. 

The solution is to drop back to supported Fusion/macOS versions that run on your hardware. And no, earlier versions of Fusion do not run on Big Sur. 

[Direwolf8]

Since Fusion 12 runs on the Westmere processor, but not with a Westmere running Big Sur, it ought to be possible for

VMWare to modify the kext that they use with 10.X:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211860

macOS Big Sur 11.0 and later allows management of legacy system extensions for both Intel-based Mac computers and Mac computers with Apple silicon.

It doesn't seem like it would be a major development for them to extend the functionality to Big Sur on a Mac 5,1.

[ColoradoMarmot]

If apple doesn't support the OS on that hardware, VMWare will never support Fusion on it.

[Direwolf8]

They already do, don't they? Fusion 12 is supported on the Westmere running 10.X, which uses a kext. It doesn't magically add the hardware function to the processor.

[Technogeezer]

, no they don't. Fusion 12.0 is supported on Mac models that are supported by Apple that run Catalina or Big Sur. Mac Pro 5,1 are not supported by Apple to run Catalina or Big Sur. The last macOS version that Apple supports for a Mac Pro 5,1 is Mojave.

Apple has also stated that kexts are deprecated technology and support will be removed in a future release. Because of this, VMware made the decision to stop supporting their kext hypervisor in Fusion in favor of integrating with the Apple Hypervisor framework in Big Sur and later. They didn’t want to invest more effort in a dead technology.

My prior comments on hardware support for macOS versions still stand. Not supported by Apple, not supported by Fusion.

Re-introduction of kext support and support for Macs that Apple doesn't support isn’t happening.  Run a supported version of macOS on that hardware (Mojave was the last), and a compatible version of a Fusion for that release (11.5.7 was the last) and it will continue to run with kexts. 

[Direwolf8]

All you've done is rehash the reasons that have already been repeated. I think we already know that Fusion 12 doesn't run on the Mac Pro 5,1 running Big Sur.

Big Sur doesn't support kext files anymore, but does have a new way to add kernel extensions. So Fusion 12 COULD be made to work on that platform.

"VMware made the decision to stop supporting their kext hypervisor in Fusion in favor of integrating with the Apple Hypervisor framework in Big Sur and later. They didn’t want to invest more effort in a dead technology."

So are you privy to the company's internal product development decisions, or are you speculating?  If it's just a matter of supplying a new-style kernel extension. why do you object so much to their doing it?

Buying a new mac as someone suggested isn't a good solution to an otherwise simple-appearing problem. A 12 core Mac Pro with 96 GB RAM, similar to my current configuration, is $ 8000, not counting the cost of updating or getting adapters for firewire peripherals. And it would add 50 pounds of e-waste.

I'm not claiming that VMWare will do this. I just wonder why some of you seem to be so dead set against it that you're making excuses for why it won't work.

[Technogeezer]

We're tilting at windmills here.

We're not making excuses or dead set against anything. We're stating reality.

VMware explicitly states that Fusion supports specific macOS versions and the Mac hardware that Apple supports for those macOS versions. Anything else is unsupported. They're not going back to do anything to make Fusion work on your unsupported hardware/software combination. I'm sorry that's the case but it is what it is. 

I'm not a VMware engineer and I suspect that you aren't either. I'm going on what VMware has said here and in other areas about how/why they have decided to integrate with new macOS operating system versions, and their decision to use the macOS Hypervisor Framework going forward.

As with most things, the situation about kext vs system extensions may not be as simple as it may appear. My suspicion is that system extensions are not a 100% replacement for kernel extensions.  I would also suspect that if it was easy to use system extensions vs. the new Hypervisor Framework that both VMware and Parallels would do it to preserve as much of their existing hypervisor code as possible. But it doesn't appear that either chose that route.

I'm not saying buy a new Mac. You can run that Mac forever on the software that both Apple and VMware say are supported for it. I am saying that vendors make decisions (both Apple and application vendors) about what platform combinations they are going to develop for and support. You may not like those decisions.

And if you're worrying about e-waste, Apple will recycle that Mac for you.  

[Technogeezer]

There's been some timely posts over on The Eclectic Light Company by Howard Oakley (eclecticlight.co) about kernel extensions.

Kernel extensions run as part of the kernel with enhanced privileges and access to the innards of the OS. System extensions run in user space, not at the OS level like kernel extensions. They don't have the same privileges and access as before.

The Apple Hypervisor Framework also lets virtualization code run from user space, and provides APIs to manage low level virtualization functions that now are part of macOS. My theory is that those necessary low level capabilities that hypervisors used to use are not accessible to user space applications without going through the Virtualization APIs. In which case, you can't simply port a hypervisor code 1:1 to the new macOS paradigm. It has to be refactored to support the new APIs because you don't have access to the inner workings of macOS that you had with kexts.

So in essence, VMware is already running with something like system extensions on Big Sur and Monterey. 

.

[ColoradoMarmot]

The issue isn't can it be done, the issue is does apple support that hardware and os stack.  In this case the answer is no.  So expecting a vendor to spend limited time and development resources on support for an unsupported platform leveraging legacy technology (kext) isn't reasonable.  VMWare would be taking on having to troubleshoot the hacks you had to put in place to install the OS itself, as well as their own product.  Not going to happen by any vendor, let alone one who's primary focus is on enterprise-grade software because there is effectively zero revenue associated with it (and a whole lot of cost and risk).

Your choices are to upgrade to a supported platform, or accept the limitations of running legacy OS software versions if you want vendor support.  Choosing to hack the OS and other software to force it to run means choosing to accept all of the potential limitations and issues.

That machine is ~10 years old.  Like it or not, it probably is time to upgrade.

[tombsb]

The current situation is a mess.

After upgrading the Mac Pro, all VMs do no longer work. I cannot migrate them to another platform, because Vmware Tools are installed and subsequently won´t open there. I also cannot uninstalled the tools, because Fusion cannot start up the VMs.

Trying to copy them to another platform with an earlier OS and supported Fusion version does not help either - on the contrary, I have had two situations where the VMs were totally corrupted after trying to launch them (empty VMX file or DUMMY entries).

P.S.: Regarding "use a supported machine" - I have tried on a brand new 2019 Intel Macbook Pro. All VMs which have been working fine on the MP under Mojave prior to moving to Big Sur do not launch there. The Macbook runs Monterey and Fusion 12, still no solution and nobody knows why ...

[Technogeezer]

 

I have to assume based on your comments that you're in the same situation as the OP. Running a Mac Pro 5,1 with OCLP to make it run a newer version of macOS that's not supported by Apple. I understand the frustration, but there's really not much more to say if that's the case. VMware versions 12 and later do not support a kernel extension-based hypervisor. They are dependent on what Apple provides in the Hypervisor Framework. Apple decides what Macs they're going to support with a release, then builds the capabilities based on that hardware. In this case, it looks like the Hypervisor Framework was not built with the CPU found in the Mac Pro 5,1 in mind. 

The MacBook Pro situation is a bit more puzzling, though.

I assume that those VMs were shut down (not suspended) before moving them to other hardware?

The "empty VMX or DUMMY" entries are puzzling as well. Were the contents of the VMX files double checked after transfer, and were they configured for a virtual hardware version supported by the older Fusion version?

What happens when you try to launch the VMs you transferred to the MacBook Pro? Error message?

On the MacBook Pro, have you tried the following:

Make sure you're on macOS 12.3.1

Completely uninstall Fusion using the process in https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/1017838 - don't just drag the application to the trash. Make sure you have your Fusion license keys handy because this process deletes the installed keys.

Reboot

Re-install Fusion 12.2.3

 

[Michael Roy]

Yah, it is kind of a mess. 

We _could_ work around it if we used our own Kexts, yes.

However, we can't use our own kexts on Big Sur+ due to Apple policy changes, so we have to live with what their hypervisor.framework provides. This is just what we get. 

A similar situation exists with MacBook Pros... after updating to BS or later, nested VMs stopped working because Apple decided that the chips they bought from Intel didn't need vPro, so it's missing a special and important CPU instruction that we use for running Nested VMs (VM in a VM).  We worked around it eventually, but it's painfully slow... So nested is only good on Macs that have Xeons basically. (I can't recall if iMac or Mac Mini also suffered, but my personal Mac Mini is locked to Catalina as a result...).

[Technogeezer]

 , I think that "can't use our own kexts on Big Sur+" will be met with a reply from people that "Well, Parallels still runs with kexts so why doesn't VMware?".

Isn't it a bit more accurate to say that VMware made the decision to get ahead of the curve and focus development resources on building for Apple's recommended hypervisor framework? And it was done because Apple has said that support for kexts is deprecated and will be removed? I can see why you would make such a decision - why keep investing resources in a dead-end technology.

I sincerely hope that your work with the hypervisor framework APIs is encouraging Apple to improve it where it may be lacking.

The situation with the removal of python 2.7 in macOS 12.3 also shows that Apple can remove deprecated technologies at any point in time without notice..

 

[tombsb]

 Thank you for your reply.

I absolutely see the point and I can understand if this poses some technical challenges, but there are a few things which bug me, being a long-time Vmware customer and having moved a lot of folks from Parallels to Vmware:

The development of Fusion left a lot to be desired and there has been a lot of talks about "what is going on" in the channel throughout the years. Vmware has sent out many advertisements and surveys, but it obviously was asked too much to keep their Fusion customers up to date regarding this problem.

What I mean is that everyone knows that many pro users are still happy with the performance of their older machines and given that they work nearly flawlessly with the patchers we have, it is a terrible idea to turn them into electronic waste (and it needs to be said how ALL companies say how environmentally conscious they are, just to forget all of this when it suits their needs).

Being a bit familiar with other Mac developers, these guys all know pretty well how many pro users are still using their 2010 Mac Pros. So it is safe to say that the devs at Vmware are aware of the situation too - so why not address this and mention the situation in their many mails? Would have been so easy ...

But like I said, I understand your explanation and would like to thank you very much for your assistance regarding my MBP issue. I will try to see if your suggestions work and hopefully can get back soon on this.

[Technogeezer]

 - I do understand. Some of that older hardware is still useful, especially those Mac Pros. If Apple had continued to enhance those instead of the ill-conceived 2013 Mac Pro, we might have been better off. A good portion of this mess I blame on Apple. They drop OS support way too soon IMO - if we had published timelines for OS end-of-life and extended security update support, we'd have a lot fewer of these useful machines having to resort to hacks to keep them going.

But there are times that I wish VMware were a bit more forthcoming about what they are doing. They're just as "close to the vest" as Apple is sometimes, and that's not a good thing. They're unnervingly quite about some issues that are bothering a lot of Fusion users (how long does it really take to get a fix for the tech preview because a kernel security patch keeps updated kernels from booting, networking flakiness with the new apple network frameworks, upgrade issues to name only a few).

Keep us posted on that MacBook Pro. I have a funny feeling that in-place updates of both Apple's OS and Fusion don't quite mesh. Especially if you're migrating from macOS earlier than Big Sur to Big Sur or Monterey with a kext-based version of Fusion installed. 

[texter65]

look like I'll use virtual box that works fine no XSAVE issue with that

[boogereater]

So Fusion 13 is out, and they still didn't fix it.

At least Parallels knows how to program, or at least set the compiler options correctly.

 

Blizzard did the same dumb thing on the latest World of Warcraft release, and had to fix it. It wasn't just 5,1's, it was multiple models.

This is not a Mac problem, it's an Intel problem, and Mac software developers not setting up their compiler correctly. A new version of the compiler came out with an option switched, so it broke a lot of applications on multiple Intel Macs.

It's not just Big Sur. I am running Mac OS 12.6 Monterey.

These 5,1's are more powerful than most of the new Macs, and they are Apple Supported.

I am using the Apple recommended and supported ATI Radeon rx580 Sapphire 8GB Metal GPU and dual x5690's, NVME, and 256GB RAM. Yes, we even have Handoff, the latest WiFi/BT, USB 3, and Thunderbolt. The systems are not outdated. The new Macs simply can't keep up, unless you spend $54k on a new Pro, then talk about software problems...

 

[Technogeezer]

Suggest you read up on what XSAVE is and why it might be useful to a hypervisor. It was an engineering decision for efficiency, doing in one instruction something that a hypervisor needs to do often which would take multiple instructions to accomplish. It’s not just a “compiler option”.

With the number of customers VMware has for their hypervisor products (likely many times more than Parallels), they might have a pretty good idea on how to code one. 

I’m sorry you’re disappointed that VMware didn’t modify their code to run on Macs that Apple doesn’t support with Big Sur and later. It should not have been a surprise or an expectation given the discussion in this thread and others like it.

if Parallels or Virtual Box run on that configuration, I guess that’s what you’ll have to do. 

[ColoradoMarmot]

A 5,1 Mac pro is 12 years old, and is no longer Apple Supported - it hasn't been in years.   The last OS supported on it was Mojave. 

Expecting support from a third party vendor on a configuration that Apple doesn't even support, isn't realistic.  Running outdated and/or hacked configurations incurs risks, and this is one of them.

[tombsb]

 Many here (including me) are vmware enthusiasts who have supported the company since the first Fusion release, often switching from Parallels. Removing support for the Mac Pro 5,1 was a major disappointment, especially because the installer did not issue any warning and resulted in damaged VMs on my side. It was a big mess getting everything back to launching again.

Anyway, I have reverted back to Parallels and the configuration works like a charm. Windows 10, XP etc. all run perfectly fine on my 5,1 with Big Sur, which - by the way - has not been running into any security risks.

[ColoradoMarmot]

Hacking the OS with opencore is a security risk.  

VMWare is in the business of building and supporting commercial software, which means they build support for only vendor supported platforms.  The last version of Fusion that supported Mojave was 11.5.5, which was released ~3 years ago, so they didn't 'remove' support recently - Fusion 12 and 13 never supported it at all.

By all means, run Parallels or another platform, but keep in mind that they likely didn't 'choose' to keep support for it, rather they haven't made the choice to modernize their offerings to take full advantage of current platforms.  They're focused on consumer, versus enterprise, workloads, so that hasn't been a priority...yet.

Look, I get that hardware is expensive.  While the best answer is to retire ancient systems and get on an supported stack, I understand budget reality.  However, if folks take the alternative and hack around Apple's OS to keep legacy systems running in an unsupported configuration, then there are consequences to that decision.  Accepting that complex software with deep integrations into the kernel probably won't work properly is one of them.

There was another thread here recently for someone trying to get NT running on Fusion 13 (which hasn't been a supported guest in a long time).  It still works on Workstation because that uses the VMWare hypervisor, but it's not 'supported'.  It even works of Fusion 11 on Mojave, though again, wasn't supported.  But it doesn't work on Fusion 13 because of the hypervisor shift.   Time, and technology, move on.  

But if you think this is bad...wait until you move to an M1 chip...I've had to give up on a lot of legacy stuff because there's simply no way to make it work at all.  Folks need to plan well ahead for that move, budgeting not only for hardware, but any software replacements too.  I still keep an old intel machine around to do my taxes, because turbotax on mac is inferior, and I'm not yet confident that it'll run on Windows 11 ARM.  When that machine dies or no longer gets OS support, I'll probably have to buy a PC just for that one program, which, while reality, sucks.

[Technogeezer]

---

 wrote:

But if you think this is bad...wait until you move to an M1 chip...I've had to give up on a lot of legacy stuff because there's simply no way to make it work at all.  Folks need to plan well ahead for that move, budgeting not only for hardware, but any software replacements too.  I still keep an old intel machine around to do my taxes, because turbotax on mac is inferior, and I'm not yet confident that it'll run on Windows 11 ARM.  When that machine dies or no longer gets OS support, I'll probably have to buy a PC just for that one program, which, while reality, sucks.

---

The harsh reality is that the Mac is not a PC. But that reality was not really noted because Parallels, VMware and even Apple itself could make a Mac run a PC's Windows operating system because it had an Intel chip.

The harsher reality is that new Macs with M1/M2 chips have thrown the widely held assumption that "it'll run any Windows version that my PC can run" totally out the window.

[NeilPaisnel]

So I have just joined this discussion a bit late.

I was only running VMFusion7 on Mojave. on a Mac 5,1

But it now keeps crashing it doe into even boot, I just ge the Reboot Report Ignore message.

I have just seen broadcom have taken over VMWare and I guess that means no further support from VMWare them selves.  I have just run in to this XSAVe Error after upgrading to the Free Pro version of 13.

I have Virtual machine running Win XP for my work aviation logbook.  Thankfully I do still have my 2004 Sony Vaio with XP on it, but not a real solution.

Is there any way to run a Fusion 7 created VMWare machine or am i totally "screwed" unless I buy all new hardware and then loose all my PhotoShop CS6 stuff which I just cannot afford

[Technogeezer]

Is there any way to run a Fusion 7 created VMWare machine or am i totally "screwed" unless I buy all new hardware and then loose all my PhotoShop CS6 stuff which I just cannot afford

I have an answer that you're not going to like.

The sands of time have caught up with you. It's going to be tough continuing with that 12+ year old Mac Pro. At least, I'm assuming that you're running a Mac Pro since you posted to a thread where the subject is running Fusion on a Mac Pro.

The last version of macOS that supported MacPro 5,1  is Mojave. Fusion versions that supported Mojave are 11.0 through 11.5.x. Fusion 7 was never tested for Mojave, and you were extremely lucky that you got it to work without problems.

Later versions of Fusion aren't supported on MacPro 5,1 since it's officially stuck on Mojave. Apple made a lot of changes to macOS that made VMware make corresponding changes to Fusion in order for it to run. And if you're thinking - I'll just run OpenCore Legacy Patcher to install macOS 13 or later so I can run Fusion 13.x, that's not going to work either. The newer versions of VMware's hypervisor code requires the XSAVE hardware instruction -- and that hardware instruction is not found on the Intel chip in a MacPro 5,1. OpenCore can't patch their way around that one.

You also can't buy any licenses for old Fusion versions any more. And VMware didn't offer free licenses for anything before Fusion 12. And they don't even provide free Fusion 12 licenses any more -- only Fusion 13.5.2 and later. 

None of the discussion about Fusion support of macOS and Mac hardware has anything to do with Broadcom taking over VMware. VMware's support policies for macOS and Mac hardware were in place long  before Broadcom entered the picture.

Options include:

• Run that VM on a more modern Intel Mac that will support Fusion 13.5.2 or later (those will run for free - and Fusion 13.5.2 can run on an Intel Mac that supports macOS 13 Monterey). 
• Run that VM on a PC running VMware Workstation - just know that you'll need a PC that has an Intel CPU that has the XSAVE instruction to run recent VMware Workstation 17.5.2 or later (like Fusion, these are the versions that are available for free)..
• Install Windows XP and your aviation logbook software (or convert your VM)  using another hypervisor product that continues to run on Mojave. VirtualBox may still have a version that runs on that ancient macOS Mojave -- and it would certainly be available for free. A conversion might not be easy, though. 

------------------------------
- Paul (technogeezer)
------------------------------

[NeilPaisnel]

Hi Paul

Thanks for the reply.

I decided a few years back that I'd not move to the newer online version of my Logbook software, (Skymark Technologies Aloft) after trying it and found it differed in a few ways and the re-jigging of all the hours with 3000 plus hours was just too much to deal with.  And it would only run on Windows and at the time  (2008) I had just moved to Mac, the 3,1 being my first Mac.  Upgraded a bit since then with a 4,1 upgraded to 5,1 spec 

If I cant carry on with the 12 year old mac...guess I'll just have to cary on with my 20 year old Sony Vaio that my VM originally came from.  ! ;)

I have found out a lot of what you said by trial and error over the last ...I was going to say few day s..but it looks like only 15 hours!  

I did run OCLP and Sonoma on a MacBookPro 2010 and that was where the XSAVE error came from.

Thought I'd give Virtual box a whirl and installed that on the MacBookPro..but of course Virtual Box will not import the vmwarevm machines ....

I finally realised Workstation11 would do the ovf export from vmwarevm machine .

Dug out a Win 7 HP laptop and after trawling the internet found versions of Workstation 11 ...and serials that worked to register it..Hurray ..getting some where...but no, even after importing the  three files that the Workstation ovf Export create...Virtual Box will crash with a display error on the OCLP machine ..I suspect yet another XSAVE error, or some OCLP issue.

But all not lost, I got an older version of Virtual Box running on the Mac pro 5,1 Mojave...and yes my Virtual XP machine , opened in Workstation on a PC and then exported to ovf  yes ..it does work  I can finally run my old XP Virtual machine on the Mac Pro 5,1....but ..and there is always a kick in the teeth.....Bloody XP now sees a hardware change and need re activation!  Oh FFS!  :)

I do still have my original XP install disks and labels..so that might me the next thing.

I am Stil able to run Fusion 7 on the 5,1 , so what I have done is exported my logbook to both csv and a pdf and any other format it exports to.  30years and near 7000 hours..cant loose that .

But the whole process was started so i could run a new version of OSX on my Mac Pro 5,1 ...coming to the end of my aviation career now, so spending £3000 plus on a new high end Mac is not on the cards like not was when I bought the  Mac 3,1

To me Mojave is quite 'new' only put it on a year or so back.  But even if I do some how find a way to run any of these XP Vm's on a new machine I am still likely screwed as the WinXP activation issue will then likely rear its head again  :(

The conversion ..so far all the conversions seem to revolve around using a Windows PC removing tools and guest 'parts' to the VM.

Workstation does seem to export to ovf successfully .

Time to unplug from the internet and retreat further in to my cave I think !

Tried so many variations in the last few days.

 I am currently sat in my living room, surrounded by two iMacs running  MX Linux, and OSx, Mojave Mac Pro, MacBook Pro and three Windows PC's  (XP 7 and 10)...about all I have done in two weeks is battle this .....oh well another coffee and the struggle continues!  I will not be beaten!

I'll have three or four Intel PC's here so might just have to try the suggestion of trying the free versions on a Windows PC

Thanks

[Technogeezer]

@NeilPaisnel 

Yes, you look to have uncovered the "dirty secret" about using OCLP to run macOS on unsupported hardware. The patches will make a newer macOS versions work on unsupported hardware, but not all things work. There are corner cases imposed by the hardware and software.  OCLP introduces (older) drivers for older hardware (including graphics hardware) that doesn't have the functionality that the newer macOS release is expecting. This can cause issues when making system calls to macOS and the OS thinks it has all the hardware features but doesn't. And of course, OCLP can't fix a lack of an instruction on the CPU chip itself. 

spending £3000 plus on a new high end Mac is not on the cards like not was when I bought the  Mac 3,1

I don't know the entirety of your use case, but  you might want to look at the new M4 Mac mini. It starts at approximately $600 USD (I'd choose the 16GB RAM/512GB ssd, config at approximately $750USD myself). and looks to be a very capable performer.  It will run Windows XP under UTM (by emulating a Intel CPU). This might be a more modern alternative assuming that you don't have other ancient Mac software that absolutely won't run under newer macOS versions and/or you need the PCI slots that the Mac Pro provides. 

If you have Intel Linux PCs, you might want to consider GNOME Boxes or libvirt virtualization that's built into most of today's Linux distros. That should be able to run XP. 

I'll have three or four Intel PC's here so might just have to try the suggestion of trying the free versions on a Windows PC

If you do have one of those Intel PCs, just remember that the free personal use versions of VMware Workstation (17.5.2 and later) need the XSAVE instruction as well. Double check that the PC you're looking to use has an Intel's Sandy Bridge (or later) architecture CPU.

------------------------------
- Paul (technogeezer)
------------------------------

[NeilPaisnel]

Thanks Paul

Ah ..found the Draft.. sorry, my posts do seem to go on a bit...

The reason I was thinking of £3000 as a cost was going on what my original Mac Pro cost me back in 2008.  It was massively over spec'd for what I needed then and kept up until now with a few upgrades. It is still in daily use, though the main machine is a 5,1.  I tend to think Speed big at the outset and keep it for along long time,,,

Software… wanted to hang on to my original copies of Lightroom / Photoshop CS6.  There is no way in **** I am paying a monthly subscription for the amount of use I get out of the likes of Photoshop / Lightroom etc.  and my internet connection is such that I really am avoiding cloud computing like the plague.  My financial situation is not what it was back when I bough the 3,1  (due career issues)   so another reason to keep my older hardware hanging in a bit longer.

I have played with the likes of one Source editors like GIMP but well, did not get on, and TBH the thought of getting to grips with new ways of doing things like layer masks, selection tools/ layers etc in photo editing just makes me want to scream

i think rather than a Mac Mini, I'd likley look at moving to a laptop, giving me the ability to use the same machine with qDSLR Dashboard for DSLR camera control in conjunction with LRTimelapse… Timelapse video creation tools.  Currently I run them using an old IBM ThinkPad running Peppermint Linux

I'll try the free Workstation on my three Windows laptops to see… but another issue I discovered is that moving the V machines to new hardware prompts XP for reactivation, just as it would if moving the hard drive  to another box, the HAL ( think that was it) is still in there.  

Did I hear ( from you ?) that XP telephone activation is still possible… but REALLY ?  Microsoft…? just release a patch that kills activation checking for anyone still running XP … it is not going to impact sales or profit !  Rant over ! 😂 

Looks very much like my aviation career is coming to an end, hence the issue of both not spending big £££ on new kit, and also my excessive amount of free time playing with this.  
Finding myself doing pointless things.  Yesterday I created a 10.7.5 USB boot installation stick on an OCLP Monterey machine, via a load of command line stuff, just so I could do a fresh install of 10.7.5 on a 2,1 Mac Mini,  that was running perfectly, except for the Recovery Partition having 10.7.2, so any Recovery would have put it back to 10.7.2 not 10.7.5.  

Oh… I am glad you mentioned the PCI slots ! I'll need to look.  I have a SCSI card for running a CanoScan slide / negative scanner… or that might be on a  FireWire interface / adapter… Yes FR1 Utility    

Wonder what ports  the M4 Mac Mini you mention have that will allow SCSI .. via FireWire   or I think Thunderbolt now ?   

Hmm

all things to ponder but the more I look the more I think I am going to have to just upgrade the 4,1/5,1 to max spec, and keep it for phot video stuff as is..and but a newer machine  :( 

Thank you for your help

and apologies for the long posts !  they are rather like my brain at the moment 

[NeilPaisnel]

Two of the Win laptops are AMD

Athlon II P340 dual core 2.20Ghz

A4-4300 2.5Ghz

only one Intel

Core i3 -2330 2.20 Ghz

Need to keep one as it is the only thing I can get to interface with my Solar Array controller..and that was another game in itself  !

[NeilPaisnel]

The other issue I could potentially see with getting an M4 is my displays I have I think one display port 2 DVI and whatever my 20 year-old TV input is probably VGA

I'd want to keep all running

Could an M4 handle those old inputs?

[NeilPaisnel]

Oh great.

I just wrote a reply and "Saved as Draft"   

But no way to retrieve the Draft..  You can Upload File, Cancel, Delete Save As Draft, Schedule or Post...but no option to retrieve the Dafts just saved...

bugger

[Jason McClellan]

@NeilPaisnel  - your drafts are in your profile top right under contributions.  Not ideal but that is where they land.  Thx Jason McClellan, Platform Admin

------------------------------
Thank you
Jason
Broadcom Community Platform Admin, IT
------------------------------

[NeilPaisnel]

Thank you Jason, I did actually find it after I switched from phone to the computer. 
I dug around and eventually found it.