Instead of Rosetta 2, why Apple doesn't make a Windows x86 emulator?

[Digitalguy]

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.

Concerning Windows on Arm licensing, to be honest while it's not official, Parallels has rencently found a way to run proper Windows on Arm on Apple Silicon, not the insider version, and it can be activated with no problem via any licensing. So licensing is no longer an issue with Parallels.
Nobody knows the details of the Qualcomm exclusivity and if the contract will be extended or not. But regardless I don't see much interest from Microsoft to have WoA running in a devices without the OEM paying for Windows (and Apple is never going to pay). I see more interesting options in letting Windows on Arm run on devices like Samsung Android tablets (instead of Dex), especially if Samsung can make use of the more powerful Nuvia chips that Qualcomm is preparing for WoA.

 

[G46&Fbnth5]

I don’t think it will happen and I don’t understand why/how it could replace Rosetta.

 

[Ethosik]

Concerning Windows on Arm licensing, to be honest while it's not official, Parallels has rencently found a way to run proper Windows on Arm on Apple Silicon, not the insider version, and it can be activated with no problem via any licensing. So licensing is no longer an issue with Parallels.
Nobody knows the details of the Qualcomm exclusivity and if the contract will be extended or not. But regardless I don't see much interest from Microsoft to have WoA running in a devices without the OEM paying for Windows (and Apple is never going to pay). I see more interesting options in letting Windows on Arm run on devices like Samsung Android tablets (instead of Dex), especially if Samsung can make use of the more powerful Nuvia chips that Qualcomm is preparing for WoA.

Has Microsoft said they allow the use of Parallels? I keep hearing it but it sounds more like a license application hack than a valid EULA and valid use of the license. It would not surprise me if Microsoft forbids this. Microsoft licensing is way too messy to where even our Microsoft rep at our work didn't even know how the licensing should work. Printers and switches needing a Windows CAL licenses.....REALLY?!

 

[bobcomer]

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.

Those are just marketing...

 

[bobcomer]

Microsoft licensing is way too messy to where even our Microsoft rep at our work didn't even know how the licensing should work.

I 1000% agree with this, it's ugly, real ugly.

 

[ikir]

See title. Running Windows software in Mac OS would be a welcome feature.

This is so wrong in so many points… anyway you can run Windows a software with CrossOver.

 

[leman]

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.

I never said anything like that. What I said that they don’t want to support running Windows software as part of core macOS features. A third-party solution like VMs or dual booting is something entirely different.

 

[ikir]

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.

too simple to put this way. Macs were not standard PCs, just because Mac and PC shared same CPU, there were so many differences especially in recent years.

 

[bobcomer]

Concerning Windows on Arm licensing, to be honest while it's not official, Parallels has rencently found a way to run proper Windows on Arm on Apple Silicon, not the insider version, and it can be activated with no problem via any licensing. So licensing is no longer an issue with Parallels.

It actually still is if you're concerned about getting a Microsoft licensing audit, and I'm that if nothing else!

Activated doesn't mean licensed validly! and btw, you could always do this from the very first Parallels preview version on the M1. It's nothing new, and yes, I tried it way back then and it worked. The hard part was getting a downloadable non-insider installer.

Nobody knows the details of the Qualcomm exclusivity and if the contract will be extended or not.

Yep. One can hope they'll allow purchasing licenses eventually though.

 

[BootsWalking]

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.

Did Boot Camp undermine everything Apple stands for?

 

[bobcomer]

A third-party solution like VMs or dual booting is something entirely different.

Not to me, they all run on the Mac hardware. But it really doesn't matter in the end. Apple has made some allowances for other things than pure, current, MacOS, 'nuff said.

 

[Ethosik]

It actually still is if you're concerned about getting a Microsoft licensing audit, and I'm that if nothing else!

That is what I was concerned about too if Microsoft has outlined it is an acceptable use of their license or not. But it sounds like Parallels is just doing a hacky thing to get a license applied?

 

[Digitalguy]

Has Microsoft said they allow the use of Parallels? I keep hearing it but it sounds more like a license application hack than a valid EULA and valid use of the license. It would not surprise me if Microsoft forbids this. Microsoft licensing is way too messy to where even our Microsoft rep at our work didn't even know how the licensing should work. Printers and switches needing a Windows CAL licenses.....REALLY?!

They haven't, just like they have never authorized cheap OEM licences to be sold. But they have never done anything to forbid it and I don't think they ever will. For those who are worried just don't it... I'll continue to do it...

 

[philstubbington]

See title. Running Windows software in Mac OS would be a welcome feature.

… there’s not enough demand, and for those that need it, there’s Parallels

 

[Digitalguy]

It actually still is if you're concerned about getting a Microsoft licensing audit, and I'm that if nothing else!

Activated doesn't mean licensed validly! and btw, you could always do this from the very first Parallels preview version on the M1. It's nothing new, and yes, I tried it way back then and it worked. The hard part was getting a downloadable non-insider installer.

Yep. One can hope they'll allow purchasing licenses eventually though.

It's not the same thing. Insider builds expire, this is a full version of WOA, not an insider build and it will never expire, just like any other OEM version. If you are concerned about getting OEM licences for some reason, fair enough. I have zero concerns.

 

[philstubbington]

They haven't, just like they have never authorized cheap OEM licences to be sold. But they have never done anything to forbid it and I don't think they ever will. For those who are worried just don't it... I'll continue to do it...

Microsoft do audit, and having been a participant in a couple of Anton Piller orders many years ago, for a larger corporate it can be quite, errr, expensive.

 

[tofagerl]

It makes far more sense for Microsoft to just make a native ARM version of Windows.

 

[Digitalguy]

Microsoft do audit, and having been a participant in a couple of Anton Piller orders many years ago, for a larger corporate it can be quite, errr, expensive.

Sure, in this case, it's a risk not worth taking. For a consumer, it's a different story...

 

[bobcomer]

That is what I was concerned about too if Microsoft has outlined it is an acceptable use of their license or not. But it sounds like Parallels is just doing a hacky thing to get a license applied?

It's actually not that hacky, it's easy to do, but yes, that's pretty much it. Microsoft hasn't went after anyone yet, but they could.

Here's some relevant licensing issues:

For running Windows in a VM (just the term windows, not Windows for Arm, which really is a different product, but it kind of spells out Microsoft's thoughts on VMs. Volume license is a difference I know -- probably most of those $3 keys probably come from that.

"Customer may run Windows software acquired through a volume licensing agreement on up to four Virtual OSEs locally on Licensed Devices. This local use right applies to VDA Per Device licenses only if the Licensed Device is also licensed with a Qualifying Operating System. Licensed Users may run Windows software acquired through a volume licensing agreement on up to four Virtual OSEslocally on devices licensed with a Qualifying Operating System. If all permitted Virtual OSEs are used Customer may use the Physical OSEonly to host and manage the Virtual OSEs."

And, of course, apple silicon can't be a licensed device.

And from https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/minimum/windows-processor-requirements. No M1 there.

And from the insider program:

"
The Insider Preview program says: “To install Windows 10 Insider Preview Builds, you must be running a licensed version of Windows 10 on your device.” And as far as we are aware, there is no way to buy a Windows 10 ARM license for a Mac with Apple silicon. There have been plenty of discussions on the topic from users and the media, and from the Insider Download Page, it reads:

With Windows 10 on ARM Insider Preview builds, you can create 64-bit ARM (ARM64) VMs in Hyper-V on Windows 10 ARM-based PCs. Creating ARM64 VMs is not supported on x64 hardware.

ARM64 VMs are only supported on devices that meet the pre-requisites:

• Windows 10 ARM-based PCs with a Microsoft SQ1, Microsoft SQ2, Qualcomm Snapdragon 8cx, or Qualcomm Snapdragon 850 processor
• Windows 10 Pro or Enterprise, build 19559 or newer
• Hyper-V enabled (instructions)"

 

[bobcomer]

If you are concerned about getting OEM licences for some reason, fair enough.

Very -- it's part of my day job. I'm an IT manager that has to really deal with licensing.

have zero concerns.

That's your right for now, things may change, or maybe not.

Like I said, I hope Microsoft makes it unquestionably legal for everyone.

 

[Digitalguy]

It's actually not that hacky, it's easy to do, but yes, that's pretty much it. Microsoft hasn't went after anyone yet, but they could.

Here's some relevant licensing issues:

For running Windows in a VM (just the term windows, not Windows for Arm, which really is a different product, but it kind of spells out Microsoft's thoughts on VMs. Volume license is a difference I know -- probably most of those $3 keys probably come from that.

"Customer may run Windows software acquired through a volume licensing agreement on up to four Virtual OSEs locally on Licensed Devices. This local use right applies to VDA Per Device licenses only if the Licensed Device is also licensed with a Qualifying Operating System. Licensed Users may run Windows software acquired through a volume licensing agreement on up to four Virtual OSEslocally on devices licensed with a Qualifying Operating System. If all permitted Virtual OSEs are used Customer may use the Physical OSEonly to host and manage the Virtual OSEs."

And, of course, apple silicon can't be a licensed device.

And from https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/minimum/windows-processor-requirements. No M1 there.

And from the insider program:

"
The Insider Preview program says: “To install Windows 10 Insider Preview Builds, you must be running a licensed version of Windows 10 on your device.” And as far as we are aware, there is no way to buy a Windows 10 ARM license for a Mac with Apple silicon. There have been plenty of discussions on the topic from users and the media, and from the Insider Download Page, it reads:

With Windows 10 on ARM Insider Preview builds, you can create 64-bit ARM (ARM64) VMs in Hyper-V on Windows 10 ARM-based PCs. Creating ARM64 VMs is not supported on x64 hardware.

ARM64 VMs are only supported on devices that meet the pre-requisites:

• Windows 10 ARM-based PCs with a Microsoft SQ1, Microsoft SQ2, Qualcomm Snapdragon 8cx, or Qualcomm Snapdragon 850 processor
• Windows 10 Pro or Enterprise, build 19559 or newer
• Hyper-V enabled (instructions)"

Now that there is an option to avoid Windows Insider, I think it's not even worth considering it, unless you specifically want Windows 10 instead of Windows 11, but then you'll have to deal with the temporary nature of insider builds and have to start over from scratch periodically.

 

[bobcomer]

Now that there is an option to avoid Windows Insider, I think it's not even worth considering it, unless you specifically want Windows 10 instead of Windows 11, but then you'll have to deal with the temporary nature of insider builds and have to start over from scratch periodically.

It's still against the WoA (normal version) EULA from what I understand, and you still can't buy a retail copy of Windows on Arm.

I do use the insiders build for personal stuff, even though that too is a gray area. For the company I work for, it's way too high a risk for me to use for work, and my own sense of right and wrong forbids it as well, but I can certainly understand why others don't see quite as much gray and black as I do. I'm the type that tries to follow rules, even if I don't like them.

Besides, it's way too easy to stay legal. (Just don't use WoA for anything serious until things change) After all, I have an Intel Mac Mini (i7, 64GB RAM that serves a Windows VM for my Studio, among other server type tasks), and a Windows i9 beast of a machine that always runs Windows, and has even more RAM and ssd. I have Windows covered as long as I don't try traveling with an M1 Mac. Not to mention I have a spare Windows laptop that is a pretty nice machine as well. (Dell XPS15 with OLED screen)

 

[Bug-Creator]

and for those that need it, there’s Parallels

Which is 99% identical on what a "Windows emulator" would and how it would work.

Apple would still have needed a way to run x86 OSX apps aka Rosetta so the the whole premise of this thread is either a complete lack of understanding or a poor attempt at trolling.

 

[ADGrant]

See title. Running Windows software in Mac OS would be a welcome feature.

If running Windows software on Mac OS is important to you, I would suggest buying an Intel Mac for now. If Microsoft starts taking Windows on ARM seriously, you may have other options in future.

 

[MrGunny94]

Anything involving a Microsoft license is a mess from both development & business perspective, you can trust me on this one.

Rosetta is a temporary solution which for my use case is pretty good, can’t wait for everything to be native though.. Especially certain ’rogue’ Microsoft apps that years to transition since fall 2020