Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
For M1 owners wanting Windows on Parallels- ARM support in Win 11!
- Thread starter donawalt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A reboot and it seems to be installing. It looks like Microsoft is temporarily waiving the TPM 2.0 requirement for the Insider Previews.
The “secret weapon” would be running Android apps as well as running Linux software in a 2-in-1 device. This would capture the “I need Unix but hate mac” crowd, as they would likely already have Android devices and their favorite apps. This ability would stroke their pride as having “one device for everything” and allows them to sneer at iPad+Mac combo.Correct me if I am wrong, but Microsoft has tried ARM processor and it didn't work out because the developers didn't jump on board.
Will Apple Succeed Where Microsoft Failed? | codebursthttps://codeburst.io › will-apple-suc...
M1MM, threw the TPM error. iMac 2017, did not throw the error message. It installed without issue.
The benefit of VMware, we can mask almost anything presented to the VM. I have Tiger running in a VM, because I am masking the CPU as a Core Solo. So I think we could say that a 3rd-6th generation iCore is a 7th/8th generation, and get by this. Also I just learned of the Registry settings to ignore the TPM, Secure Boot and CPU floor. Well I hope there's a setting for CPU but, so far just the others.
Maybe Microsoft anticipates these workarounds and it's not worth fighting it.
There are plenty of reasons a VM would simply not have TPM X.X, and such things as VDI and ESX are good enough to simply give up trying to stop the installation, due to software assurance, enterprise, education subscriptions.
The benefit of VMware, we can mask almost anything presented to the VM. I have Tiger running in a VM, because I am masking the CPU as a Core Solo. So I think we could say that a 3rd-6th generation iCore is a 7th/8th generation, and get by this. Also I just learned of the Registry settings to ignore the TPM, Secure Boot and CPU floor. Well I hope there's a setting for CPU but, so far just the others.
Maybe Microsoft anticipates these workarounds and it's not worth fighting it.
There are plenty of reasons a VM would simply not have TPM X.X, and such things as VDI and ESX are good enough to simply give up trying to stop the installation, due to software assurance, enterprise, education subscriptions.
I simply signed up to Insider Preview - Dev level. It upgraded to Windows 11 without trouble. Windows 10 has to be the latest release version, so it trundled for a while.
This also works on Intel Mac/Parallels.
This also works on Intel Mac/Parallels.
Add me to the list of people running the Apple Silicon version of Parallels Desktop 16.5 and having the Windows 10 for ARM64 Insider Preview update to Windows 11. To the OP, this doesn't bring anything out of beta. What some of us hope is that it brings Windows for ARM64 into some kind of licensing arrangement wherein the STABLE RELEASE VERSION of the ARM64 version of Windows can be loaded in a VM comfortably, rather than this nonsense of downloading an Insider Preview and it not being officially supported by Microsoft. But all of that still remains to be seen...
It will be interesting to see if Microsoft allows licensing of the official released version of Windows 11 on ARM. Parallels said they have 7 million subscribers. If VMWare has even half that, then that’s roughly 10-11 million currently running Windows on a Mac through virtualization. Others may be using Boot Camp. As Macs migrate to Apple Silicon, those numbers will gradually decline unless Microsoft makes Windows 11 on ARM available.
The question is whether ~$1 billion of potential revenue is enough for Microsoft to act. My guess is probably not in itself. There may need to be another reason. Perhaps to spur interest in Windows on ARM in general (particularly if Qualcomm is serious about making its own ARM-based SOC designs), but OTOH it seems that Apple and Microsoft are back to seeing each other as direct competitors for new technology such as augmented reality.
Businesses will drive what Microsoft does. MS could care less about consumers.
It would be stupid for Microsoft and Apple to not be having several discussions of brining Windows (be it 10, 11, or both) to Apple Silicon Macs behind closed doors. It's a tremendous opportunity for both companies, let alone a mutually beneficial one.
Except it’s been over a year since Apple announced the shift, 7 months since the first M1 Macs shipped, and Apple has switched over models representing about 2/3 of its Mac sales, and Microsoft hasn’t said anything. Granted, they haven’t exactly cracked down on downloads of the Insider Preview, but if they haven’t announced anything by now, there is a good chance they won’t. Microsoft doesn’t even need to do any work, since Corel/Parallels already has it working.
It’s possible that Microsoft is waiting for updated Qualcomm chips to become available (so that the fastest PCs running Windows on ARM aren’t Apple Silicon Macs running it in virtualization). Or maybe they will use the Windows 11 rollout to announce retail availability/”OEM” availability through Parallels/VMWare. Or maybe they will crack down and use Windows 11 to convince people to buy Windows PCs.
Additionally, we know that VMWare hasn't been talking to Microsoft either. There was a blog post on progress on VMWare Fusion at the beginning of May and it was pretty clear from the post that there have been no discussions with Microsoft beyond a simple request for clarification and a promise to update the blog post if more information was forthcoming. Needless to say, no blog update occurred. From the VMWare Fusion Blog:
If VMWare isn't getting anything from Microsoft, I doubt Parallels is either.
True. And it isn’t as if Microsoft has ignored Apple Silicon completely. Apple showed off native versions of Microsoft Office last year during the preview.
The only reason to think Parallels might push harder is that, unlike VMWare, Parallels specifically caters to Mac users running Windows. VMWare caters more to enterprise users running Windows or Linux VMs on Windows or Linux hosts. Granted, now that Parallels is part of Corel, they may have the resources to change their focus if they find their Mac VM business severely reduced, but Corel might now want to write off a big chunk of their investment, and could press Microsoft harder for a deal. Would Mac users pay, say $99 or even $149 for an “official” Windows license? Maybe not your average consumer, but an enterprise currently running Windows VMs on Macs would. The key is how many of Parallels’ 7 million users would take the plunge vs. just get a Windows PC or find replacement apps for what they need.
... Not sure... Enterprises are now moving to cloud as well. So rather than providing a few employees with Windows+Mac, another option would be to straight-away allow rental of Windows on Azure for those “occasional uses by a few employees”. Those having “Legacy Windows Enterprise Applications” would be easier to manage when deployed on a cloud system anyway and give access via Citrix.
That’s fab it works, sadly I don’t know if the one app I want actually has a arm64 executable. (Magix Music Maker)
What with the ransomware attacks lately?? It'd be stupid to go externally managed cloud -- unless you have a lot of money for ransoms.
Considering Microsoft's Windows on ARM efforts aren't exactly going at the same speed that Apple's macOS on Apple Silicon efforts are, I'd say it's premature to judge whether or not this happens. Again, Windows 11 isn't even out yet and it's highly likely that Apple and Microsoft want to wait and see how Windows 11 for ARM64 releases/matures before making waves. It's possible that, at least as far as ARM64 Windows is concerned, that Windows 10 for ARM64 was merely a beta run for Windows 11 for ARM64 and that Microsoft will expand ARM64 Windows accordingly once Windows 11 becomes the version of Windows shipped on the vast majority of PCs.
I just ran Windows update and it upgraded me to Windows 11, no issues at all on Parallels. No ISO to download or anything!
I’d like to see the statistics of cloud vs on-premise and the number of unpatched vulnerabilities. If anything, AWS, Azure, and GCP tend to manage their systems better and keep patches current than most non-IT enterprises.
Interesting. Mixing ARM and x64 in the same process is something that Apple doesn’t do.
That's a good question. I wasn't really talking about the cloud providers when I said that, but the remote administration software providers. Things like VSA remote software monitoring and management tool in the recent 70M ransomeware attack. But I think it's only a matter of time before the cloud providers get hit too. They're just too big a target. There's no way I'd move anything new to the cloud without some kind of ransomeware insurance clause in the contract.
What this suggests to me is that Microsoft expects Windows on ARM to coexist with Windows for x86 for the foreseeable future. Apple wants a clean break. In a few years Apple is likely to announce that “this is the last version of MacOS that will support Rosetta 2” and move on.
Not exactly. While Rosetta does translate MOST x64 code into ARM, there are certain x86/x64 specific functions that Apple baked into the silicon for two reasons. The first reason is for those functions that can't simply be recompiled to the ARM ISA, and the second reasons is overall performance of recompiled apps. Microsoft's approach is also focusing on emulation of x64 instead of a one-time translation prior to initial execution, which will continue to negatively impact performance compared to Apple's approach to this transition. The more I look at what Microsoft is trying to do, the more I think they are still spooked by the total failure of the Surface RT, and are trying to focus on compatibility with existing apps instead of working to recompile or even rewrite apps from the ground up for ARM-based processors.
Apple and Microsoft are doing pretty much the same thing by translating x86 to Arm64. Apple seems a bit more focused on translating ahead of time (AOT) while Microsoft seems to be translating just in time (JIT). But they are both caching the results and optimizing the code. Microsoft makes its task more difficult by translating both x86 and x86-64 but I doubt that is causing many issues.
I’m not sure what you are trying say with “there are certain x86/x64 specific functions that Apple baked into the silicon …” As far as I’m aware, the only thing Apple baked into silicon was Total Store Ordering (TSO) which modifies the normal permissive memory model of Arm64 to force a memory model of the x86. This is faster than putting memory barriers into the translated code but probably only accounts for a few percentage points of increased performance. Apple also doesn’t translate anything that can’t run in the user application layer ring of the CPU. I don’t know if Microsoft does the same or not.
I suspect that most of the discrepancy between the performance of Rosetta 2 vs. Microsoft’s translator is just that the M1 is much faster than the Qualcomm SoC in the Surface X.