I tried to set up a macOS VM recently so I could run an old version of iTunes to manage my iPods. I found it nearly impossible to even download an installer for older versions of the OS, and could never get it working. Where can one acquire an IPSW for, say, macOS Mojave? My understanding is this is not the same thing as the “Install macOS.app”?
For a version of macOS that old, you’d probably want a dmg, which you can create with createinstallmedia if you have the Install macOS.app. Not sure if it’s supported with Lume as it’s the first time I’ve heard of it.
I was trying to do something similar last year and gave up because it felt futile. That said, it was the push I needed to try Rockbox, and I haven't looked back. Managing things via the file system is really nice.
I started on my Linux box and despite many apps claiming to support iPods, none would actually work. I ended up getting an old Mac mini running again and I’m using that for now. I’ve never given Rockbox a good look, I should check it out.
LoganDark is right. I've personally never tried, and don't think it'd be easy for any macOS predating Apple Virtualization Framework. For that you'd need something like UTM since they're relying on QEMU - these configs might help: https://github.com/adespoton/utmconfigs
"We built a VNC + OCR system that clicks through macOS Setup Assistant automatically" - that is both awesome and annoying. I guess I assumed that Apple supported some form of unattended setup.
Yeah, Apple intentionally provides no unattended setup. Plus any process trying to control the UI programmatically needs explicit accessibility permissions, which defeats the purpose.
So we just click through like a human would via VNC. Version-specific but works with their security model rather than against it.
Both use Apple's Virtualization Framework, so core VM performance is similar. Main differences are around agent-first design (HTTP API, MCP server), unattended setup via VNC + OCR, and registry support for VM images.
We've also built a broader ecosystem on top - the Cua computer and agent framework for building computer-use agents: https://cua.ai/docs
Not seeing any reference to Tart at that link. Tart also has registry support for VM images it treats them very much like Docker images, is that what you are doing too?
Is it worth putting a comparison up somewhere other than a Github thread? Seems to be a frequently asked question at this point.
Also worth drawing attention to Tart being source available not open source.
I believe this is using Virtualization.framework and not Containerization API from Tahoe, right?
Is there a limit on number of instances you can have per physical mac? i recall there was a hard limit of 2 because of EULA, unless Apple has changed it. (Cupertino really likes to sell you their Macs)
We haven't observed any networking degradation with Lume on Tahoe so far - things have been working smoothly in our testing. Give it a try and let us know if you run into any issues!
The key difference: dockur/macos uses QEMU+KVM, which only works on Linux hosts. It can't run on macOS hardware since Apple doesn't expose KVM. See: https://github.com/dockur/macos/issues/256
You're both right - Apple's official zero-touch setup requires MDM + DEP, which needs Apple Business Manager (and yes, a DUNS number).
But for VMs specifically, DEP doesn't work anyway - VMs don't have real serial numbers that can be enrolled in Device Enrollment Program.
VNC-based setup automation is the only practical option - it's what the ecosystem has converged on for macOS VMs. Lume connects to the VM's VNC server and programmatically tabs, clicks, types through Setup Assistant.
I wish the virtualization framework would allow you to simulate your own MDM stuff. Would be very useful for integration testing MDM implementations themselves...
I tried to set up a macOS VM recently so I could run an old version of iTunes to manage my iPods. I found it nearly impossible to even download an installer for older versions of the OS, and could never get it working. Where can one acquire an IPSW for, say, macOS Mojave? My understanding is this is not the same thing as the “Install macOS.app”?
For a version of macOS that old, you’d probably want a dmg, which you can create with createinstallmedia if you have the Install macOS.app. Not sure if it’s supported with Lume as it’s the first time I’ve heard of it.
I was trying to do something similar last year and gave up because it felt futile. That said, it was the push I needed to try Rockbox, and I haven't looked back. Managing things via the file system is really nice.
I started on my Linux box and despite many apps claiming to support iPods, none would actually work. I ended up getting an old Mac mini running again and I’m using that for now. I’ve never given Rockbox a good look, I should check it out.
Mojave never was an IPSW, because it never ran on Apple Silicon. I imagine this tool might just not support that at all.
LoganDark is right. I've personally never tried, and don't think it'd be easy for any macOS predating Apple Virtualization Framework. For that you'd need something like UTM since they're relying on QEMU - these configs might help: https://github.com/adespoton/utmconfigs
Ahh I see. UTM was what I was trying, so I’ll give those a look! Thanks
"We built a VNC + OCR system that clicks through macOS Setup Assistant automatically" - that is both awesome and annoying. I guess I assumed that Apple supported some form of unattended setup.
Yeah, Apple intentionally provides no unattended setup. Plus any process trying to control the UI programmatically needs explicit accessibility permissions, which defeats the purpose.
So we just click through like a human would via VNC. Version-specific but works with their security model rather than against it.
How does this compare to something like Tart and shapehq/tartelet
Both use Apple's Virtualization Framework, so core VM performance is similar. Main differences are around agent-first design (HTTP API, MCP server), unattended setup via VNC + OCR, and registry support for VM images.
We've also built a broader ecosystem on top - the Cua computer and agent framework for building computer-use agents: https://cua.ai/docs
We went through the comparison with Tart, Lima etc here: https://github.com/trycua/cua/issues/10
Thanks for answering, makes sense.
Not seeing any reference to Tart at that link. Tart also has registry support for VM images it treats them very much like Docker images, is that what you are doing too?
Is it worth putting a comparison up somewhere other than a Github thread? Seems to be a frequently asked question at this point.
Also worth drawing attention to Tart being source available not open source.
I believe this is using Virtualization.framework and not Containerization API from Tahoe, right?
Is there a limit on number of instances you can have per physical mac? i recall there was a hard limit of 2 because of EULA, unless Apple has changed it. (Cupertino really likes to sell you their Macs)
Correct, Containerization APIs are Linux VMs specific.
There's a kernel-level check in the Hypervisor framework that enforces the 2 VM limit, and bypassing it violates Apple's EULA.
Nice technical deep-dive on the how here: https://khronokernel.com/macos/2023/08/08/AS-VM.html
How is the networking? Tart broke networking in Tahoe. Would love to see this work, setting up base images has always been a massive pain.
We haven't observed any networking degradation with Lume on Tahoe so far - things have been working smoothly in our testing. Give it a try and let us know if you run into any issues!
Sorry for the naive question but specifically for running Claude on a sandbox, why do people decide to use lume as opposed to running it on Docker?
Docker on Mac runs Linux containers inside a Linux VM - you can't run macOS in Docker. So if you need Claude / Codex / OpenCode to interact with:
- macOS GUI apps (Xcode, Numbers, Safari, etc.) - macOS desktop automation (screenshots, mouse/keyboard input, accessibility APIs) - macOS CI/CD (building iOS/macOS apps, running XCTest)
...you need an actual macOS VM, which is what Lume provides.
I wonder what the additional layer of virtualization changes with respect to this in a project like this one: https://github.com/dockur/macos
The unattended setup is a large improvement, which also begs the question: Mac OS doesn't have an unattended.xml alternative for its installer?
re: https://github.com/dockur/macos
A closer comparison here is Lumier, which provides a "Docker-like" interface to spin up VMs with a noVNC server: https://cua.ai/docs/lume/guide/advanced/lumier/docker
The key difference: dockur/macos uses QEMU+KVM, which only works on Linux hosts. It can't run on macOS hardware since Apple doesn't expose KVM. See: https://github.com/dockur/macos/issues/256
macOS has unattended setup options via MDM or Apple Configurator…
Can you do zero touch without having an Apple Business account (so, a DUNS number) and a MDM?
I thought this was a silly way to do it too, but upon reflection I don’t know if you can zero touch setup a Mac without registering a device in DEP.
re: unattended setup.
You're both right - Apple's official zero-touch setup requires MDM + DEP, which needs Apple Business Manager (and yes, a DUNS number).
But for VMs specifically, DEP doesn't work anyway - VMs don't have real serial numbers that can be enrolled in Device Enrollment Program.
VNC-based setup automation is the only practical option - it's what the ecosystem has converged on for macOS VMs. Lume connects to the VM's VNC server and programmatically tabs, clicks, types through Setup Assistant.
I wish the virtualization framework would allow you to simulate your own MDM stuff. Would be very useful for integration testing MDM implementations themselves...