Could x86-64 emulation be possible on ARM Macs?

[throAU]

I doubt it will lead to much more than a fullscreen iPad version for the first few years. There are no ARM Macs out there right now and tens of millions of Intel Macs.

It's starting to get better since controller support across all platforms is a thing. I've been playing with the AppleTV a bit over the past couple of days with a dual shock controller and the experience is decent. Ocean Horn 2 for example you wouldn't really pick it as an iPad game as controller is mandatory even.

 

[theluggage]

Not to nitpick, but Parallels was around before the Apple-Intel switch, if virtually unknown. Parallels Workstation was released for Linux and Windows in 2005 and subsequently ported to OS X in 2006. It was that port that kicked them into high gear so to speak though.

Indeed - as was VMWare Workstation (which begat Fusion for Mac). At that time, though, they were more developers tools (even if you're developing for Windows on a Windows machine, being able to spin up a 'virgin' virtual machine for testing or to keep your web server stack in its own sandbox is invaluable). Parallels for Mac/VMWare Fusion were the first time it was really sold as a consumer product, though.

 

[maflynn]

you can’t boot other os on iPads, I don’t hear anyone complaining about it?

Seems that people want that choice ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

you’re inserting your own bias in your analysis above

Of course, as you are doing the exact same thing, and every other member in this thread is.

 

[theluggage]

Not to contradict you - but it's possible to get your hands on a Windows 10 for ARM ISO and run it in QEMU, which presumably is as generic a machine as it gets. It's slow as heck (at least on my host) but it runs.

I was talking about direct booting Win10 ARM on whatever the ARM Mac hardware turns out to be. You're talking about an emulator - it can make the guest OS see whatever hardware it needs, not just the CPU. As can virtualisation to a certain extent. That ARM Linux distro apple showed working under ARM Parallels? Bet that didn't have drivers for the A12 GPU or SSD controller - the hypervisor was making it see virtual hardware it could drive. If you "direct boot" you don't get that - either Apple has to write and maintain drivers (or publish full technical details) or build some sort of emulation layer into the firmware.

Apple is not going to actively support software that you "can get hold of" (*cough*) - but maybe if you "get hold of" (*cough*) a copy of ARM Windows then you'll be able to configure either an emulator (definitely) or hypervisor (possibly) on an ARM Mac to run it. That doesn't mean it could run directly via direct boot.

It is perfectly possible that someone will offer Windows "solutions" for ARM Mac - either x86 via emulation or ARM Windows via virtualisation but (especially in the second case) it could be part of a deal with Microsoft and come 'bundled' with a customised/hardware-locked version of Windows (if my memory serves, that's what happened with SoftWindows, back in the day).
[automerge]1593263962[/automerge]

Seems that people want that choice ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

...but
(a) do they have a genuine need for it that would make them buy an iPad (vs. a ChromeBook or Android slab that is already - technically - running Linux and is much easier to root) - or are they just wanting to do it for TEH LULZ? ("Will it run Linux" is an old Slashdot meme).

...and
(b) Were they planning to write their own x.org graphics drivers for the A12 GPU?

 

[dogslobber]

I was talking about direct booting Win10 ARM on whatever the ARM Mac hardware turns out to be. You're talking about an emulator - it can make the guest OS see whatever hardware it needs, not just the CPU. As can virtualisation to a certain extent. That ARM Linux distro apple showed working under ARM Parallels? Bet that didn't have drivers for the A12 GPU or SSD controller - the hypervisor was making it see virtual hardware it could drive. If you "direct boot" you don't get that - either Apple has to write and maintain drivers (or publish full technical details) or build some sort of emulation layer into the firmware.

Apple is not going to actively support software that you "can get hold of" (*cough*) - but maybe if you "get hold of" (*cough*) a copy of ARM Windows then you'll be able to configure either an emulator (definitely) or hypervisor (possibly) on an ARM Mac to run it. That doesn't mean it could run directly via direct boot.

It is perfectly possible that someone will offer Windows "solutions" for ARM Mac - either x86 via emulation or ARM Windows via virtualisation but (especially in the second case) it could be part of a deal with Microsoft and come 'bundled' with a customised/hardware-locked version of Windows (if my memory serves, that's what happened with SoftWindows, back in the day).

Your drivers point is an astute observation and easily overlooked. ARM Macs will generally be SoCs (System on Chips) with built in GPU which is proprietary. Nobody knows the specs except Apple. This is totally different from iGPUs on Intel chips that do have graphical drivers. Lack of drivers will make generic FB support poor compared to any VM experience. The HVF hooks allow for acceleration in the VM instance. ARM Linux will be just as neutered on HW until somebody reverse engineers the SoC iGPU but who’d want to, especially if it’s a moving target.

 

[theluggage]

Craig may have dismissed plans to have a dual-boot with another ARM OS such as Linux or Windows 10 on ARM64. That's today.

But also, today, virtualisation is by far the best solution to running all but the most demanding Windows/Linux software on the Mac, with "just get a PC" coming in at number 2. Even with PC servers these days, increasingly the only thing that "direct boots" is a standalone version of VMWare or similar, with everything else running in VMs.

Seriously, I could shut down all my Mac applications, deal with any urgent emails, make sure that any data I needed was moved somewhere that Windows could read and reboot into windows (then go and have a cup of coffee while Windows installs the 50 urgent security patches that appeared since I last used it 3 days ago), or I could:

(a) Fire up a virtual machine alongside whatever I was doing in MacOS (and post some nonsense on MacRumors while it was updating), or
(b) Pull a Surface Pro out of the top drawer and fire it up, or
(c) Flip the KVM switch hooked up to a 32 Core Ryzen/dual NVIDIA box that cost less than an entry Mac Pro under the desk.

I would speculate that the real situation is something like this:

* Or have already done so, @maflynn

Best thing Apple could do to help people who need to run Linux? Put a displayport input on the new iMac and make sure that the Synergy folks are first in line for a development box.

 

[maflynn]

do they have a genuine need for it that would make them buy an iPad

Immaterial,
Regardless of their motivations or desires, there are some that wanted to do it. I don't think anyone can defend the removal of choice for the consumer is a good thing.

 

[D.T.]

You’re right and you’re wrong, and you’re inserting your own bias in your analysis above. The elimination of boot camp in favor of virtualization is an acknowledgment of the fact that virtualization is far, far more practical today than it was when Apple first launched boot camp. They aren’t “begrudgingly” allowing virtualization, they’re just accommodating the reality that outside of gaming there’s no real need or utility in direct-booting alternate operating systems with modern virtualization-assist CPUs. You are mistakenly interpreting this as Apple’s hostility to open platforms and user freedom, but it really isn’t. There’s no real performance or usability downside for professional users using virtualization these days.

Underlined emphasis mine, and just speaking in the context of developers - by way of my experience as developer/architect/writer and knowing a ton of people in the development community - for the people who do need a little Windows action (many don't use anything from the MS tech stack), it's done via a VM. They want most of their computing experience to take place in MacOS, and the VM is generally just VS / SSMS (with services being networked VMs or Containers ... almost nobody uses "direct on the metal" servers ...)

I'm also seeing a lot of folks moving to remote development systems, for improved testing and delivery, centralized code management, etc.,

I specifically mentioned developers as I suspect they represent a decent contingent of "power users", and would likely be a candidate for direct booting if it was advantageous in any way.

 

[psingh01]

As long as Rosetta 2 is around (which might not be very long), CodeWeavers thinks their WINE app CrossOver will continue to work. It doesn’t use emulation or virtualization, but operates something like Rosetta in that it translates Win32 and Win64 code into MacOS instructions.
[automerge]1593132048[/automerge]

It makes sense. Apple didn’t allow direct booting of alternate OSes in the 68K or PowerPC era. Boot Camp was an accommodation when Apple was specifically targeting Windows users as a growth market. They aren’t doing that anymore.

Not entirely true. I had Yellow Dog Linux installed on a second hard drive on my old PowerMac 9600. It wasn’t “supported” by Apple, but nothing prevented people from simply installing it.

It may still be the case with ARM that it’s not “supported” (i.e. you are on your own), but still technically allowed to run alternative ARM OSes. It depends on how much they lock it down.

Not that it matters much since the appeal was running x86 Windows as an alternative.

 

[KPOM]

Not entirely true. I had Yellow Dog Linux installed on a second hard drive on my old PowerMac 9600. It wasn’t “supported” by Apple, but nothing prevented people from simply installing it.

It may still be the case with ARM that it’s not “supported” (i.e. you are on your own), but still technically allowed to run alternative ARM OSes. It depends on how much they lock it down.

Not that it matters much since the appeal was running x86 Windows as an alternative.

Only certified OSes can be installed on Macs with the T2 chip.

 

[theluggage]

Immaterial,
Regardless of their motivations or desires, there are some that wanted to do it. I don't think anyone can defend the removal of choice for the consumer is a good thing.

No, it's the only material point. Apple's only obligation is to make money, and their only reason to lift a finger to support alternative OSs is if it will gain them sales in some way. The important thing for that is to support MacOS/iOS/iPadOS etc because those are the unique selling points that persuade people to pay Apple's premium prices.

The consumer's choice is to buy something other than a Mac or iPad. If enough people do that then maybe Apple will re-consider their decisions.

Meanwhile, everybody is free to criticise Apple's decisions as much as they like, but you're trying to invoke some sort of non-existent consumer "right".

(and you're still presuming that Apple is going to block other OSs, despite the announcement that you'll still be able to turn off secure boot in MacOS 11 - in which case it's up to MS, the Linux community etc. to make Mac compatible versions).

Note that it would be rather different if Apple had some sort of near-monopoly on the computer or mobile market that risked unfairly killing the competition, and anti-trust laws kicked in - but they just don't. (Some of us remember the 80s and 90s when buying and using anything other than a Wintel PC was an uphill struggle, MS were playing "Windows ain't done till Lotus won't run", charging PC vendors licenses even for machines that shipped without Windows and investing in Apple as a token "competitor" to appease the authorities...)

 

[DearthnVader]

What am I seeing here? Is this you running a Windows 10 VM on a current Mac and then recording the installation process with QuickTime? If so, what does this prove?

It's Windows 10 installing on Apple SoC, aka the iPhone XR.

 

[Amethyst1]

It's Windows 10 installing on Apple SoC, aka the iPhone XR.

Using UTM/Qemu?

 

[DearthnVader]

Using UTM/Qemu?

Yes, it runs XP ok, but Win 10 ( 32 bit and 64 Bit )is a no go, likely a Ram issue, best I can give it is 800MB.

Tho I'm having issues installing Win 10 on my Mac in Qemu 5.x too.

I also have UTM running in Xcode's iPhone simulator, so we'll see how that goes.

 

[Amethyst1]

VMWare Fusion were the first time it was really sold as a consumer product, though.

Back in 2000 there was a short-lived, cut down version of VMware Workstation called VMware Express that did one thing only - run a single Windows 95/98 VM on a Linux host. It was targeted at the average Linux user.

 

[leman]

I don't think anyone can defend the removal of choice for the consumer is a good thing.

Apple became the most valuable company in the world by offering choices they decided were useful, not the choices that customer have vocalized as desirable. I don’t see a problem. If people want more choice, they get something else. Your are basing your rhetorics on the assumption that choice can be had “for free”. But this is not the case. There are tradeoffs to be made at every single step, with every single decision. Which is incidentally why systems offering too much choice are almost never successful, except in a niche where this choice actually makes sense.

@theluggage has summarized my views on the matter much more eloquently than I ever could

 

[RoundaboutRider]

(a) do they have a genuine need for it that would make them buy an iPad (vs. a ChromeBook or Android slab that is already - technically - running Linux and is much easier to root) - or are they just wanting to do it for TEH LULZ? ("Will it run Linux" is an old Slashdot

Speaking as a financial professional I tried using my iPad Pro + Magic Keyboard for ‘real work’ and even though iPad OS is a significant improvement over iOS, simple tasks like file management and flexible multi tasking still feels like working with workarounds on a compromised system.

Unfortunately despite what Apple asserts in their keynotes as “forward thinking”, most of the corporate world are not quite there yet when it comes to working in a purely online, mobile out browser based environment.

Personally Linux on an iPad would be hugely beneficial running aside iPad OS.

 

[theluggage]

I tried using my iPad Pro + Magic Keyboard for ‘real work’ and even though iPad OS is a significant improvement over iOS, simple tasks like file management and flexible multi tasking still feels like working with workarounds on a compromised system.

...which is nature's way of telling you that you should have bought a laptop... Today, if you want a Mobile/Linux crossover, you need a Chromebook (which, these days, run web apps, Android apps and Linux apps side-by-side) and in a year's time you'll be able to buy a MacBook Air successor that can run MacOS Apps, iPad/iPhone apps and virtualise ARM Linux without re-booting... plus, I suspect, there will emerge some way of running Windows applications via some permutation of virtualised Win10/ARM, full emulation, Rosetta2+WINE, cloud servers/whatever.

Personally Linux on an iPad would be hugely beneficial running aside iPad OS.

Linux (as in full Linux distros, not Android) on an iPad would suck - Gnome/KDE/etc GUIs are designed for keyboard/pointer use on large screens (despite some cosmetic tablet-friendly design in the Gnome desktop tools that become irrelevant as soon as you run an actual application) - and support for retina screens is only just approaching stability. At best you'd be stuck with needing the magic keyboard for everything... and if you're talking about dual booting (which we were) you can't use it "aside" iPad OS, you have to shut down and re-boot to switch back and forth.

There is a separate debate as to why Apple won't allow virtualisation apps on the iPad (virtual Linux would still suck on iPad) - but this sub-thread was talking about direct booting - which doesn't just need Apple to permit it, but requires enough use cases and demand for someone to produce direct-bootable OS distributions. (In the case of MacOS/ARM, Apple have shown ARM virtualisation).

iPad works because it has an OS designed from the ground up for a handheld, touchscreen only device. A few years ago, I bought a keyboard case for my iPad and - a few months after that - wondered why I wasn't using my iPad any more. It just turned an excellent tablet into a knobbled, un-ergonomic laptop that you couldn't even use in your lap because it relied on a hard surface...

In the past, Apple have acted as if they thought iPad was the future - hence the creation of iPadOS and the iPad Pro. I get the sense that the wind has changed - otherwise the easier way forward would be to let the Mac diminish and release an iPadBook in place of the Air. They now seem very determined to stress that MacOS on ARM is MacOS, not iPad OS, so I think someone key at Apple got the memo.

 

[Marshall73]

I complain about it, I should be able to install android if I want to. I should be able to install the software I want on MY hardware. I’d wager major tech companies are courting a monopolistic practices/fixing lawsuit if the trend continues. There is 0 reason I shouldn’t be able to use another OS, and as mobile hardware stabilizes the questions will start to be asked.

Bet you want PlayStation OS on an Xbox too...

 

[wyrdness]

I complain about it, I should be able to install android if I want to. I should be able to install the software I want on MY hardware. I’d wager major tech companies are courting a monopolistic practices/fixing lawsuit if the trend continues. There is 0 reason I shouldn’t be able to use another OS, and as mobile hardware stabilizes the questions will start to be asked.

There is one very big reason why you can't use another OS. As several people have already pointed out, the low-level device drivers don't exist for any other OS. Which means that, even if Apple allowed it, no other OS would ever be able to run directly on Apple Silicon.

 

[MichaelDT]

There is one very big reason why you can't use another OS. As several people have already pointed out, the low-level device drivers don't exist for any other OS. Which means that, even if Apple allowed it, no other OS would ever be able to run directly on Apple Silicon.

That is not the reason you can’t boot another os. You can’t boot another os because they lock they boot loader down. If we could get it to boot we could engineer most of the device drivers. (It’s usually not hard you just hook up the IO to a console and monitor the output and you manipulate the device, from there you can write a driver). the part where boot chains are locked down, is likely going to be legally controversial in the years to come. Imagine if Microsoft/IBM/Clones had done that in the 90s, it would have been in the anti trust suit.

 

[wyrdness]

That is not the reason you can’t boot another os. You can’t boot another os because they lock they boot loader down. If we could get it to boot we could engineer most of the device drivers. (It’s usually not hard you just hook up the IO to a console and monitor the output and you manipulate the device, from there you can write a driver). the part where boot chains are locked down, is likely going to be legally controversial in the years to come. Imagine if Microsoft/IBM/Clones had done that in the 90s, it would have been in the anti trust suit.

I think that you missed the part where I said "even if Apple allowed it" - meaning if they allowed other OS's to boot.

Secondly, we've had OS X on Intel for almost 15 years. Back in 2005, people her were expecting OS X to be running smoothly on generic PC's within weeks of launch. Yet it's still almost extremely difficult to run OS X on Intel laptops due to the lack of device drivers. There really aren't that many people around who have both the skills and motivation to write them.

 

[psingh01]

I think that you missed the part where I said "even if Apple allowed it" - meaning if they allowed other OS's to boot.

Secondly, we've had OS X on Intel for almost 15 years. Back in 2005, people her were expecting OS X to be running smoothly on generic PC's within weeks of launch. Yet it's still almost extremely difficult to run OS X on Intel laptops due to the lack of device drivers. There really aren't that many people around who have both the skills and motivation to write them.

It’s two different things really. Writing drivers for windows or Linux to run on Apple branded intel hardware and writing macOS drivers for generic intel hardware that will be approved by Apple. Apple is still the gatekeeper and actively prevent people as best they can from running on Non Apple branded hardware, where as Linux doesn’t and Microsoft hasn’t In the past (not sure about now).

 

[MichaelDT]

I think that you missed the part where I said "even if Apple allowed it" - meaning if they allowed other OS's to boot.

Secondly, we've had OS X on Intel for almost 15 years. Back in 2005, people her were expecting OS X to be running smoothly on generic PC's within weeks of launch. Yet it's still almost extremely difficult to run OS X on Intel laptops due to the lack of device drivers. There really aren't that many people around who have both the skills and motivation to write them.

As someone who may or may not have written and entire suite of drivers for a non Apple laptop to run OSX. It’s not hard, it just takes an experienced developer and time. Most experienced developers don’t want to use time on something that is legally murky. Running Linux or Windows on Apple hardware is not murky and when done many developers jump in and contribute. Think trackpad drivers in windows, Apple’s is garbage so someone wrote a better one.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

I think that it is futile to mention about games on the Mac until popular hits appear in large numbers.

Apple sold ~4-5m Macs a quarter at its height I think. I don't think they do that any more but even if they do, they are only good enough to run recent games for what? 3 years? Call it four so that 80m user base but most of those are not gamers at the moment or can and have afforded other gaming PCs or consoles so don't play on their Macs. Hard to say the percentage but there's probably only a few million potential Mac gamers at the moment. iOS brings 1.35 billion devices to the table. Yes some will be too old, but the iPhone 6S can play Call of Duty Mobile. That is a colossal market compared to just the Mac. Or anything else really. Absolutely colossal. Are they all gamers? Not right now, but we all like to have something to keep us occupied waiting for a bus or sat on a toilet. Or you hand your phone to your kids to keep them from driving you nuts. So a big percentage of that user base is a potential gaming customer.