See title. Running Windows software in Mac OS would be a welcome feature.
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.
Instead of Rosetta 2, why Apple doesn't make a Windows x86 emulator?
- Thread starter UBS28
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is this a serious question? Why would Apple care about you running Windows software on a Mac? Including a Windows emulator would directly undermine everything Apple stands for.
To sell more Macs to people like me. You may not think it's important, but it is to some.
As for "undermine everything Apple stands for." Apple stands for making profit, nothing else. (as is the goal of every corporation)
Oh, I’m quite sure that it’s important to some. It’s just not important to Apple. They are perfectly fine with losing users like you.
One doesn’t make profit in vacuum, one does so by executing a business strategy. Apples strategy has always been defined by their vision, by creating demand instead of simply responding to it. They did not become successful by trying to make origin, they became successful by executing their vision. And emulating other environments definitely goes against that vision.
Not to say that vision can’t or won’t change, and we have no idea what Apple will be doing in ten years. But at this point offering official Windows emulation would be a radical departure from everything Apple did in the past 20 or so years.
If Windows apps could run on macOS, there would be no more native macOS apps. What developer would make a macOS app if they knew their Windows app would run on macOS?
Exactly. If that’s what you want to do why even bother with having a different system. The whole point of a Mac is that’s its “better” or at least, different, from Windows. Apples success comes from always having the initiative. What is suggested here is literally to give up the initiative and become dependent on Microsoft.
By the way, similar reasoning applies to basically every decision Apple made in the last couple of years, from pushing their own GPU API (gaining initiative in GPU design space), their own CPUs (gaining initiative in software design space) etc. why anyone would think that giving up the software ecosystem initiative is an even remotely good idea is beyond me.
Obviously, but that's a different question altogether.
You mean like not going with Intel processors and creating bootcamp?
You anthropomorphize way too much.
Parallels and Crossover are already doing that, so the request sounds like "I would like to have that for free". And yes it's Windows on Arm and it works well. Emulating X86 Windows, if at all possible, would probably run much worse than WOA on Apple Silicon.
I don't see the point in Apple investing resources into it when the possibility is already offered to their customers.
And no, it's not because Apple fanboys think that MacOS is better than Windows and Apple should stay away from it.
Apple knows Windows is an additional selling point for Macs and they are open to Windows on Arm running natively, which would make much more sense than any emulator. But Microsoft does not seem interested, because they have very little to gain and actually probably more to lose from it... (Mac users rarely buy full retails licences and either buy $3 OEM licences or simply run Windows without activating it).
I don't see the point in Apple investing resources into it when the possibility is already offered to their customers.
And no, it's not because Apple fanboys think that MacOS is better than Windows and Apple should stay away from it.
Apple knows Windows is an additional selling point for Macs and they are open to Windows on Arm running natively, which would make much more sense than any emulator. But Microsoft does not seem interested, because they have very little to gain and actually probably more to lose from it... (Mac users rarely buy full retails licences and either buy $3 OEM licences or simply run Windows without activating it).
It would probably be a hefty fee paid to Microsoft for licensing, or some legal battles. Emulators are in a legal grey area for consumers, how businesses would handle it is tricky.
Emulating an x86 PC has nothing to do with Microsoft, no licensing necessary. (other than to maybe Intel or AMD.)
Parallels only virtualizes ARM, it doesn't emulate x86. Crossover uses rosetta 2.
Anyone that is concerned with licensing gets the proper version and doesn't shop anywhere that sells Windows licenses (really just activation keys) for $3.
That's not a real thing, you have to emulate the computer to begin with, then it's just installing a legal copy of Windows.
Are you serious?
Why do you think Apple doesn’t care about running a competing OS on their hardware?
Do you really wonder why they don’t spend money on this?
Bruh.
Why do you think Apple doesn’t care about running a competing OS on their hardware?
Do you really wonder why they don’t spend money on this?
Bruh.
I’m sure you are right - based on nothing. That is actually an idea that ignores absolutely anything like a fact
Intel processors were an obvious choice, and Boot Camp was a low hanging opportunity. I don’t see anty contradiction to what I wrote. Intel Macs we’re basically regular x86 PCs and as such could boot Windows and Linux natively. You didn’t even need bootcamp.
While we are at it, let’s completely obliterate trademarks, copyrights, patents and all intellectual property rights for everyone.
At this stage, nobody can tell how much resources would take creating a functioning X86 emulator, and even less if it would run any better than Windows on Arm via Virtualization.
And one thing is very likely regardless, it would certainly run worse than Windows or Arm natively.
I don't see Apple investing resources into attempting such a crazy idea, especially when their customers already have an option to run Windows apps.
But that disproves what you said. (That they want nothing to do with running Windows on a Mac) There's also the work they did when Apple was still PPC.
Anyway, to answer the original question about Apple, they don't believe there's enough people like me to spend the money to do it, and with that I agree. Most people like me and have the same needs, wouldn't even look at a Mac after the change to the M1. I only do because, as a hobby, I'm a total OS geek, I run them all. I certainly don't buy a Mac because of work. The best way to use a PC/Windows on a Mac is via remote desktop, which really doesn't have anything to do with the Mac at all. Sure, I'd like to consolidate the number of machines I have, but it is what it is.
There's already UTM, which uses QEMU, which already emulates x86 (and other architectures as well) on the M1. And yes, it's slow, but not as slow as you would think, it would work except that it's not all that stable and it really doesn't have a big money back behind it to put enough people on it to make it work well. I'm hopeful for the future, but it really doesn't do well enough for me to rely on it.
Windows on Arm runs MUCH better, though even it isn't flawless. The problem with it is licensing, and that'll take Microsoft to change. I suspect it's the exclusivity contract they had/have with Qualcomm to make Arm processors for them that's getting in the way for now. Who knows about the future. Note that running an x86 emulator and Windows x86 on top of that wouldn't have the same EULA that WoA has.
I am just responding based on the title and OP. If its not possible, its not possible. But emulators do exist even for playstation Cell processors. What the poster is essentially asking is to be able to run raw Windows .exe files in emulation.
Look at the first post:
Running Windows software in Mac OS would be a welcome feature
In the past many companies created an image of themselves for example Apple tries to stand for Security and Privacy, BMW tries to stand for driving pleasure and so on. It is not just that simple to look at the current market and deliver what it wants. Some companies do that. But those are mostly "no name" companies the generate money by building products for others and producing high volumes. But these don't have a loyal user base. In the last 80 years or so companies successfully generated more money with the strategy to have an image and therefore kind of a fan base which is loyal and doesn't jump to the next seemingly better product.
I would say Apple is one of the companies with the most loyal fan base.
If you think back to the nineties Apple tried and failed with such a strategy. They built a crap load of different products in all kinds of niches and the more they tried to satisfy everyone the less money they earned.
To stand für certain things as a company is a good thing. I would say for both, the company and the consumer. You know where you at with the company it creates a some what reliable environment.