Bootable Windows 10 any time soon?

[theluggage]

Apple has disclaimed ownership of this process. They have said it's up to Microsoft.

Apple have said that they will not support direct-booting of alternative OSs - only virtualisation.

While there are a couple of projects to direct-boot Linux, without Apple's support that is going to involve reverse-engineering Apple's M1 drivers (one of the groups has some experience of doing that in iPhone) - getting that stable and reliable - and keeping up with new Apple Silicon chips as they appear - is going to be a big deal. Windows support is going to need to be pretty solid.

If you trace the "up to Microsoft" quote to its source then, in context Federighi was most likely talking about virtualisation (more likely than contradicting his previous statement above) - the previous paragraphs have mentioned the MacOS virtualisation framework only running ARM operating systems, so "native" in this case likely just means virtualising ARM Windows.

Nothing is impossible, Apple could always U-Turn, MS could certainly muster the resources to change Apple's mind - but best guess at the moment is that BootCamp for M1 isn't going to happen. On the other hand, we've seen a pretty convincing technical preview of Parallels + Win 10 on ARM, although it's nowhere near stable enough for production.

Microsoft would just need to change the current licensing of WoA (system builders only) to a license that would allow installation on other systems.

...not even that: they'd just need to cut an OEM license for Parallels or VMWare to distribute Windows-on-ARM with their Hypervisor software. Or produce their own Windows-for-Mac package with a bundled hypervisor.

This means that Apple's "it's all on Microsoft" is at least partly a bluff.

Apple are never going to stand on a podium and wax lyrical about Microsoft Windows. It is up to Microsoft - and Parallels and/or VMWare - to deliver virtual Windows.

Apple isn't against writing Windows software/drivers - Boot Camp has existed since early on in the Intel timeframe,

Boot Camp was low-hanging-fruit, because, at least before the T1/T2 chip, Intel Macs were PCs but for a missing BIOS emulation module in the EFI firmware (which was solved by some hackers a few months after Intel Macs launched). Most of the vital drivers were built into Windows, or regular Windows drivers from Intel, NVIDIA, AMD and other PC hardware makers. A lot of the work on Boot Camp was on the MacOS side, creating point & click tools for partitioning your disc and installing Windows without hosing your MacOS installation. The T1/T2 chip complicated things somewhat - and with Apple Silicon nearly all the key functions - particularly graphics - are now proprietary Apple implementations, so Apple would have to provide custom drivers for pretty much everything.

Currently, with MacOS on Apple Silicon, Apple can freely revise the ASi hardware with every new product line without having to worry about the impact on any OS other than MacOS. Having to support bare-metal drivers for other OSs would constrain that freedom. Virtualisation is less of a problem because the guest OS can use paravirtualised drivers to talk to the hypervisor, which then uses standard MacOS frameworks to talk to the hardware.

I'm not at all impressed with Windows on Arm, and would rather have an x86 emulator

WoA virtualisation on M1 is still at the "preview" stage but if/when it's ready for production, you'd expect x86 emulation under WoA to perform better - with most of Windows running natively and only your application being emulated - rather than having to emulate the entirety of the OS. Meanwhile, from what I hear, a big problem with WoA is that the Qualcomm-based processors in the Surface-X and other WoA hardware are a bit pants compared to the M1.

Bottom line is: Apple is still making reasonably up-to-date Intel Macs - and I suspect that they'll keep making selected models for a year or two yet. If you (a) currently need to run Windows and (b) need to get new Macs then getting Intel Macs is the sensible thing to do. Long term, you'll most likely have emulation options but if you need native x86 performance you'll probably have to get a PC.

It would be great if there were some way that Apple could offer the best of both worlds - but, sadly, a MacBook with both Apple Silicon and Intel processors isn't really a practical proposition. The whole problem with both Intel and Windows is that they are held back by the need for backwards compatibility.

...as for future iMacs - I repeat my suggestion to Apple to include a HDMI/DisplayPort input so you can plug in a NUC or something for your x86 needs...

 

[bobcomer]

Oh I don't have a clue? Did you not state that you want a Mac even though you need to run Windows apps? That's what you what said in your post I highlighted. Now you're saying it's a "occasional" Windows app? Doesn't sound like you have a clue what you want. SMH.

Yep, but not because of the hardware, but because of the OS. And yes, occasional Windows app, I've always said that. I don't run a Mac at work, only at home.

think of it this way, I run Mac's at home because I like the OS, especially the screen handling. I only need Windows apps at home when I'm doing something for work, otherwise, I run Mac Apps. At work I run Windows. If I had a really fast internet connection wherever I was at, I'd only run Mac apps on a Mac and I'd use RDP to run Windows on a Windows machine, but that's not reality.

 

[bobcomer]

Uh which part is having a problem with font rendering, Windows or Microsoft's laptops? Because if you're having an issue with font rendering in Windows then the Mac is not the solution. If it's not Windows then you can get a different Windows machine that renders fonts better.

For me it's not the font rendering itself, but the scaling on different resolution screens, especially hi-res screens. Windows is horrible at scaling. You get clipped font images, clipped icons and window titlebars. Usually it's a legacy code problem, but not always. I still prefer buying 1080p Windows machines rather than go with the scaling problems.

 

[bobcomer]

WoA virtualisation on M1 is still at the "preview" stage but if/when it's ready for production, you'd expect x86 emulation under WoA to perform better - with most of Windows running natively and only your application being emulated - rather than having to emulate the entirety of the OS. Meanwhile, from what I hear, a big problem with WoA is that the Qualcomm-based processors in the Surface-X and other WoA hardware are a bit pants compared to the M1.

And that would be fine by me, but I don't have much confidence in it. WoA has been a stepchild at microsoft for a long time and it's still at that preview stage. I wouldn't even thinking of buy WoA hardware!

 

[leman]

And that would be fine by me, but I don't have much confidence in it. WoA has been a stepchild at microsoft for a long time and it's still at that preview stage. I wouldn't even thinking of buy WoA hardware!

I understand why you might have this impression (after all, MS has been experimenting with ARM-based devices for a while), but "real" Windows on ARM is a rather recent development. For instance, x86-64 emulation support hit the insider builds less than two months ago. Overall, recent developments show that Microsoft is fairly serious about making ARM Windows a viable platform, and they are investing a lot. New Apple hardware is probably one of the reasons. Microsoft management is not stupid, they now that Apple Silicon is going to be a success, and they want to keep those new Mac users close.

 

[theluggage]

And that would be fine by me, but I don't have much confidence in it. WoA has been a stepchild at microsoft for a long time and it's still at that preview stage. I wouldn't even thinking of buy WoA hardware!

Some of the more recent reviews of WoA machines have been a bit more positive - mainly because WoA is improving, more native software is appearing and 64-bit x86 emulation is in the pipeline.

Ironically, Apple might have helped WoA gain traction - the M1 has given ARM a lot of credibility as a desktop/laptop processor. Also, I bet you an internet that if M1 Macs don't already outnumber Surface Pro Xs they will do before long... so WoA-on-Mac could dramatically increase WoAs uptake... and hence encourage support.

Plus, when the M1X/M2/whatever MacBook-really-Pro and iMac launch they'll actually create a market for "serious" laptop/desktop applications on ARM (the "Pro" in Surface Pro X is silent...)

So it comes down to what Microsoft's priority is - selling Surfaces or encouraging OEMs to make Windows-on-ARM machines in a future where x86 may not be the only game in town... and the Surface range has always struck me as more of a "concept car" to encourage OEMs to think different, while being priced and specced not to be too competitive.

As for "BootCamp" vs. virtualisation - I think it will become increasingly irrelevant, as running everything as a virtual machine or container becomes the new norm. It's already widespread in the server world to have a hypervisor like VMWare ESX as the bare-metal OS.

...meanwhile, while I'm not going to tell anybody that they don't need BootCamp or a Windows VM, there are more and more alternatives appearing as time passes: corporate software is moving to web-based services, key applications are moving to easily-ported engines like Electron (ick, but its happening) cloud-based PCs accessed via remote desktop are becoming more practical.

I also suspect that many users in the "if I put my work stuff on a cloud instance I'd be fired" category will, before long, find themselves in the "If I put my work stuff on a physical computer I'd be fired - we have to RD into the work-approved cloud instances" category - as employers contract the increasingly complex security/data protection compliance work to the "experts".

 

[bobcomer]

Some of the more recent reviews of WoA machines have been a bit more positive - mainly because WoA is improving, more native software is appearing and 64-bit x86 emulation is in the pipeline.

I run it myself, and it is getting better, but that's a REALLY low.

As for "BootCamp" vs. virtualisation - I think it will become increasingly irrelevant, as running everything as a virtual machine or container becomes the new norm. It's already widespread in the server world to have a hypervisor like VMWare ESX as the bare-metal OS.

Bootcamp is not an issue for me, I went with virtualization a LONG time ago. I've never set up boot camp on any of my Macs and use both VMWare Fusion and Parallels Desktop for my other OS's.

...meanwhile, while I'm not going to tell anybody that they don't need BootCamp or a Windows VM, there are more and more alternatives appearing as time passes: corporate software is moving to web-based services, key applications are moving to easily-ported engines like Electron (ick, but its happening) cloud-based PCs accessed via remote desktop are becoming more practical.

You sound overly optimistic to me. For me to say I don't need a Windows VM on my Mac would take me saying I was going to retire. It's just not a possibility.

Cloud based PC's aren't the answer for a lot of things. Latency and data caps can be a killers, even for a business type developer like myself.

 

[dmccloud]

Ironically, Apple might have helped WoA gain traction - the M1 has given ARM a lot of credibility as a desktop/laptop processor. Also, I bet you an internet that if M1 Macs don't already outnumber Surface Pro Xs they will do before long... so WoA-on-Mac could dramatically increase WoAs uptake... and hence encourage support.

I have a friend who works at Best Buy, he told me just last week that they rarely (if ever) sell a Surface Pro X to customers. Meanwhile, the M1 Macs (even the Mini) sells out within days of getting new units in stock every time. So at least for that store, M1 sales are outpacing Surface Pro X sales by a wide margin.

 

[Dhonk]

I have a friend who works at Best Buy, he told me just last week that they rarely (if ever) sell a Surface Pro X to customers. Meanwhile, the M1 Macs (even the Mini) sells out within days of getting new units in stock every time. So at least for that store, M1 sales are outpacing Surface Pro X sales by a wide margin.

Seeing as i have seen a total of 4 Surfaces over the years, I can’t imagine they sell while. The irony was the first student I saw with one was envious of how Numbers and Pages were optimized for touch on an iPad, but Word and Excel weren’t on a Surface. He also didn’t understand why Microsoft was proud of an outdated input like a thumb drive while Apple was pushing iCloud sharing across devices

 

[leman]

I have a friend who works at Best Buy, he told me just last week that they rarely (if ever) sell a Surface Pro X to customers. Meanwhile, the M1 Macs (even the Mini) sells out within days of getting new units in stock every time. So at least for that store, M1 sales are outpacing Surface Pro X sales by a wide margin.

Surface sales (no matter which model) are a drop in a bucked compared to Mac sales, and Surface Pro X is the least popular model, so I can’t say I’m surprised

 

[dmccloud]

Surface sales (no matter which model) are a drop in a bucked compared to Mac sales, and Surface Pro X is the least popular model, so I can’t say I’m surprised

The smartest thing Microsoft could do right now is to open up WoA licensing to allow installation on other machines (such as the M-series Macs). That would not only give them a larger install base, but more opportunity for feedback and diagnostic data that can be used to fix some of the issues present in WoA in its present form. That latter part would be the most important, because the limited release of WoA at present severely limits the amount and quality of feedback received by Microsoft.

 

[ArPe]

I only use boot camp in 2008 to play Crysis on the first MacBook Pro. I completed the game at 7 frames per second on medium-low settings ??

 

[Maconplasma]

The smartest thing Microsoft could do right now is to open up WoA licensing to allow installation on other machines (such as the M-series Macs). That would not only give them a larger install base, but more opportunity for feedback and diagnostic data that can be used to fix some of the issues present in WoA in its present form. That latter part would be the most important, because the limited release of WoA at present severely limits the amount and quality of feedback received by Microsoft.

While I know you think your idea is logical, it's probably 100% opposite what Microsoft is thinking. Hate to burst your bubble but with all these Anti-Mac ads Microsoft keeps putting out (especially the most recent one) it's obvious to a dead person that they do not want to do any dealings with Apple to get Windows to run on the M1. If Microsoft wants their WoA project to take off they will have a slower run if they allow Windows on M1. That would be giving customers another reason to buy a Mac over a Microsoft computer.

 

[theluggage]

Hate to burst your bubble but with all these Anti-Mac ads Microsoft keeps putting out (especially the most recent one)

Those ads are from Intel - not Microsoft.

 

[Maconplasma]

Those ads are from Intel - not Microsoft.

No I'm not referring to that. I'm talking about the Microsoft TV ad. See here.

 

[Zazoh]

If you are a professional and need two different OSes you’d be best served by having two hardware devices that match the OS.

 

[thedocbwarren]

If your a professional and need two different OSes you’d be best served by having two hardware devices that match the OS.

That's not a bad approach as well.

 

[poorcody]

New Apple hardware is probably one of the reasons. Microsoft management is not stupid, they now that Apple Silicon is going to be a success, and they want to keep those new Mac users close.

And it also shows them if they don't take investment in ARM seriously, they could could out-flanked. M1 probably did more for Windows on ARM than Surface did, even if you put Mac users aside.

 

[jdb8167]

While I know you think your idea is logical, it's probably 100% opposite what Microsoft is thinking. Hate to burst your bubble but with all these Anti-Mac ads Microsoft keeps putting out (especially the most recent one) it's obvious to a dead person that they do not want to do any dealings with Apple to get Windows to run on the M1. If Microsoft wants their WoA project to take off they will have a slower run if they allow Windows on M1. That would be giving customers another reason to buy a Mac over a Microsoft computer.

I don't know what Microsoft is going to do but I also don't think it is a slam dunk that they will support WoA on Apple's M1 hypervisor. If Microsoft's marketing has numbers that say that 10% or more of Mac users absolutely need Windows for example, they can increase sales of their operating system and PCs by simply doing nothing. Those Mac users will be required to purchase a PC. I don't think this is a very smart long term strategy but what Microsoft might do is a mystery.

All Microsoft has to do is maintain their current stance that Windows on Arm is only for OEMs shipping Arm based PCs and not available to VMs on other platforms (just as Apple does with macOS) and most businesses and users will not pirate the software to use in a VM. By doing absolutely nothing Microsoft increases their market share by some amount probably only known to Microsoft.

 

[fmacmac]

Many computers out there running Windows. Let Mac run Mac.

 

[theluggage]

No I'm not referring to that. I'm talking about the Microsoft TV ad. See here.

Ok, sorry. However, that’s just MS promoting the surface over the MacBook Pro, business as usual. Not really the same level as Intel’s desperate hatchet job on all things M1... MS aren’t dependent on Surface hardware sales (MS aren’t even in the same league as Apple when it comes to hardware sales).

The Surface range has been in direct competition with Macs and iPads since it started. Yet, Microsoft still make Office for Mac, Office Mobile for iOS (which are a lot more work than signing a license for Windows), sell online office and mail services to Mac users, support MS Edge, VS Code and Visual Studio for Mac... as well as selling Windows x86 licenses to Bootcamp/VM users. If MS ever wanted to decimate the Mac market, all they had to do was drop Office for Mac...

MS has always succeeded by backing both sides, ever since IBM vs. The clone makers. Licensing WoA for Mac would get MS extra money from a product they were already committed to, win a lot of credibility for Windows on ARM and, ultimately, grow the market for new WoA machines from MS and others (reality: many Windows-only users would not touch Apple hardware with a barge pole, anybody running WoA on Mac was likely to buy a Mac anyway).

 

[theluggage]

If Microsoft's marketing has numbers that say that 10% or more of Mac users absolutely need Windows for example, they can increase sales of their operating system and PCs by simply doing nothing.

Or, if 30% of Mac users would use Windows on ARM VM if it were available, they could probably quadruple their sales of Windows on ARM overnight (see earlier discussion of M1 Mac sales vs. Surface X etc.), probably at a premium price (c.f. what they get from Dell/HP/Lenovo for each PC sale), creating a whole new tranche of WoA users to encourage developers to release ARM versions of their Win x86 apps and thus making future Surface X and other WoA PCs more popular. Meanwhile, a substantial proportion of Mac users end up with an Office 365 or Exchange subscription anyway - more so if they keep a toe in Windows rather than commit to an all-Apple workflow - which is MS‘s real cash cow.

It depends how important WoA is to Microsoft - the M1 isn’t a serious threat to Windows proper, but it has the potential to be the platform that finally gets WoA off the starting blocks.

 

[Maconplasma]

Ok, sorry. However, that’s just MS promoting the surface over the MacBook Pro, business as usual.

Business as usual? TF? So it was "business as usual" when Apple had the Mac vs. PC commercials? Apparently this forum doesn't agree because they keep bringing it up as a dig against Apple for attacking Microsoft, and these ads are well over 10 years old. Microsoft mistreated the Mac in that ad I posted. They were tipping the screen back and disparaging the product. For you to say that's "business as usual" makes me further understand that you are part of the crowd that attacks Apple and defends their competition. SMH.

Not really the same level as Intel’s desperate hatchet job on all things M1... MS aren’t dependent on Surface hardware sales (MS aren’t even in the same league as Apple when it comes to hardware sales).

Microsoft can simply create ads that have nothing to do with attacking the Mac....and here's a thought, how about Microsoft doing ads that have nothing to do with the Mac, but rather selling their own product? Unless you have proof that they are not reliant on their hardware line that they invested millions into then explain to me why they keep on creating new ads promoting the Surface? What's more pathetic is Apple having a very small marketshare when it comes to the Mac but Microsoft feels the need to kill off Mac customers in favor of Windows PC's. You're defending Microsoft. Please stop!

The Surface range has been in direct competition with Macs and iPads since it started.

The Mac is not a competitor to the Surface line. The Surface is in competition with Dell, HP, Lenovo and every other Windows-based PC. Once again with the small amount of marketshare it's really pathetic, unprofessional, stupid and insanely trashy of Microsoft to attack an underdog product.

Yet, Microsoft still make Office for Mac,

LMAO! Office for Mac has been dumbed down for years and still is today. It runs like a dog on MacOS. Did you know that Microsoft charges the exact same amount for Mac Office as they do for the Windows version? Yes and the Windows version has two more included applications that will never see the light on Macs. Microsoft has been screwing over Apple customers for many years with the crap Mac Office.
It's funny how you even posted this. Microsoft is running a business and they will sorely lose a great deal of money if they don't make Office for Mac. They are not doing it out of the kindness of their heart and they are not doing anyone favors. Stop acting like they are.

If MS ever wanted to decimate the Mac market, all they had to do was drop Office for Mac...

Yeah now I know exactly what's going on here. You're a Microsoft fan and apologist. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard. If you think Microsoft has that much power to kill off the Mac you're very out of touch with reality. Other than work-related stuff in a business office most average consumers are not using Office for Mac. There's really no need for it. And average consumers greatly outweigh people in the business world that are using Office and these same average consumers make up the majority of Mac customers. I'm an insurance agent and my Office uses a combination of Macs, PC laptops and iPads. Our office uses MS Office for two things, Email and Word. I've been using Apple's office Suite iWork for way too many years and sharing files between iWork and Office without issue.

MS has always succeeded by backing both sides, ever since IBM vs. The clone makers.

Lots of Microsoft defending.

Licensing WoA for Mac would get MS extra money from a product they were already committed to,

LMAO! Really? It's bad enough nearly this entire forum tells people, "Just install Windows" as if it's free. But shortly thereafter they admit they are downloading the free file from MS's website and not activating Windows. They have no problem running it with reminder to activate Windows. Microsoft ain't making money on Windows even from the Windows customers.

many Windows-only users would not touch Apple hardware with a barge pole, anybody running WoA on Mac was likely to buy a Mac anyway).

This is the most ridiculous thing you've said. If it requires Windows to be ran in order for a Mac sale then those Windows fanboys were't buying a Mac to run MacOS in the first place, and a Mac is the wrong computer to buy. Apple doesn't design Macs for people to buy them to run Windows on them. That was an added benefit when Apple needed to get more Macs in people's hands. Today it's commonplace to buy a Mac and run MacOS. You're doing an insane amount of defending of Microsoft and frankly I don't see why you're even here. I should've realized when you replied to my post that you WRONG about that you were to here to defend Microsoft. Chill on that. ?

 

[dmccloud]

Intel's "comparisons" to the M1 are so ridiculous that even PC World has made fun of their methodology. Microsoft has been pushing out those Surface Pro vs. Mac comparison videos for years, and they never mention that the Mac includes the keyboard while the Surface Pro makes you pay $150-$180 extra for it, or that it's just as limited with ports (1 USB 1 USB-C on the SP7, earlier versions had a Mini Display Port in place of the USB-C). I made the mistake of buying one of the original SurfaceRT models (that had the ARM processor and ran Win8), that user experience was terrible, and the hardware absolutely sucked. The SP7 and SPX are better in terms of internal hardware, but the pricing of those models is a case of Microsoft attempting to out-Apple Apple when it comes to hardware pricing.

 

[dmccloud]

LMAO! Office for Mac has been dumbed down for years and still is today. It runs like a dog on MacOS. Did you know that Microsoft charges the exact same amount for Mac Office as they do for the Windows version? Yes and the Windows version has two more included applications that will never see the light on Macs. Microsoft has been screwing over Apple customers for many years with the crap Mac Office.
It's funny how you even posted this. Microsoft is running a business and they will sorely lose a great deal of money if they don't make Office for Mac. They are not doing it out of the kindness of their heart and they are not doing anyone favors. Stop acting like they are.

Several things wrong with your analysis here: First of all, there is no longer a "Windows for Mac" as a separate product. Your options are Microsoft 365 (subscription) and Office 2019 (one-time purchase), both of which are Mac/Windows compatible. Second, Office across all platforms (Mac, Windows, Android, and iOS) has been using the exact same code base for a few years now, which is why the M1 builds came so quickly after release of the machines. The only programs not available for the Mac under Microsoft 365 are Access (which hardly anyone uses on ANY platform) and Publisher. The rest of that suite (Word, Excel, Outlook, One Note, Powerpoint, the 1TB One Drive storage per user) is available on both platforms. As far as functionality of the Office apps themselves is concerned, the UI and features available within the apps are identical on both platforms. I know this because I have a 365 Home license, which allows installation on up to 6 machines.

If you're talking about Office 2019 instead of 365, then you have the same set of apps across both OSes (Word, Excel, One Note, Powerpoint for Home & Student, add Outlook for Home & Business). This leads into another big difference between O365 and O2019: 365 gives you new feature AND security updates for the life of your subscription, whereas 2019 only provides security updates for a fixed timeframe (I believe only 6 years now). Here's one example of a feature that came late to Office 2019: Windows Ink support has been in Office 365 going back to 2016/2017, but it never came to Office 2016. Windows Ink support didn't extend beyond Office 365 until the release of Office 2019 in November of 2018. Granted that has no bearing on the Mac OS side of things given the lack of touch support on the platform, but you can do some interesting things with the Apple Pencil and Microsoft 365 on an iPad...