I'm using Docker on an Apple Silicon MacBook Air with 16 GB of memory, and the benchmarks I've seen show OrbStack using noticeably fewer resources than Docker Desktop. Is Docker actively working on reducing Docker Desktop's overhead, or is the difference likely to remain? I'd prefer to stick with Docker Desktop because it comes directly from the Docker team and feels more trustworthy, but I'm not sure whether that preference is based on anything practical. I'm also curious whether newer virtualization approaches could eventually make Docker Desktop a much lighter option.
4 Answers
The Docker Desktop team is working on performance improvements. They recently released an early beta of a new virtualization layer, Docker VMM, which is intended to improve resource usage and performance on macOS. It’s still an initial step, so it’s too soon to know how close it will get to OrbStack, but optimization is definitely ongoing.
Docker Desktop may never become quite as lean as OrbStack, since large applications tend to gain features and overhead over time. That said, Docker’s API compatibility means other tools can provide a lighter graphical experience while still working with the same containers and images.
Another option is to skip Docker Desktop entirely and run a regular Linux virtual machine with the standard Docker Engine, then manage it with a lightweight interface. That can reduce the desktop application overhead, although it requires more setup and maintenance.
There are also newer lightweight container and virtualization projects for macOS worth watching. Some may eventually become practical alternatives, but they’re generally less established than Docker Desktop or OrbStack, so I’d evaluate compatibility and stability for your specific workflow.
I’d be interested in learning more about the new VMM too, especially whether it uses libkrun or a similar foundation.