If Apple doesn't care about running Windows why did they create bootcamp?
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
Because Intel macs were PC-compatible from the start and Bootcamp is a low hanging fruit that didn’t require much effort. Allowing your system to boot other OSes is very different to transparently supporting running competitor OS software under your main OS.
I am a bit puzzled that people seem to have difficulty grasping these really simple distinctions.
Back then, getting an x86 Windows license is trivial.
Right now, Microsoft made an exclusive agreement with Qualcomm that Windows on ARM will only be made available for devices with Qualcomm SoC.
So maybe the question should be asked to Microsoft instead.
Back then, supporting native Windows on a Mac boiled down to fixing some EFI bugs and providing a basic platform driver. Today, supporting native Windows in a Mac would involve extensive kernel level patches to Windows itself as well as writing and maintaining an entire array of drivers for custom hardware that was not designed to play well with the Windows driver model.
The fault for the lack of native Windows is definitely not on Microsoft. It’s on nobody, really. It would just be too much hassle and there is no interest from both parties. Too expensive, too complex, zero benefit to either Apple or Microsoft.
The issue is not Apple, it's Microsoft. Apple would be happy to support WoA natively and they have said it, if Microsoft was ok with making a version compatible with Apple Silicon. But whether it's because of the Qualcomm agreement or because Microsoft see this as a threat more than a benefit, they are not will to do it.
As mentioned earlier, the Windows 11 VM possibility exists and works well and can be be activated with a Windows licence (retail or OEM). Some people are afraid that this would not be totally ok if Microsoft audits their computer, since it does not match the EULA for Windows on Arm.
I still think most people have no issue with that. Some do, and it's fine, but saying that the possibility does not exist anymore is simply not true.
I don't think it would be too complex or expensive for Microsoft to make WoA compatible with Apple Silicon, if Microsoft saw a benefit from it. And Apple would have no issue writing the drivers if Microsoft does. It's more likely a choice dictated by either contracts with Qualcomm or due to considering that there are more risks than advantages from it.
Apple making an emulator is a completely different story, as making one that would work half decently would be extremely challenging and definitely not worth the effort.
I think people tend to severely underestimate the challenge. It took a team of experienced, motivated hackers hackers a good while to make Linux kind of work on M1. Besides, rewriting the kernel, the boot loader and the entire platform stack is one thing, maintaining it is something else entirely. Abs then we get to the main problem: the GPU. To really make Windows work, one needs a whole bunch of drivers: OpenGL, OpenCL, Vulkan and a series of DX drivers for different DX levels. Abd these drivers would need to be written from scratch, it’s not like there is any existing legacy code one can base this effort on. That is a huge amount of work, and maintaining all this, fixing bugs? This can take years. And why would Apple give their trade secrets (internal GPU documentation) to the competitor anyway? And if those are not enough difficulties, how about the fact that it is not clear at all that Apple GPUs are even compatible with the DX/Vulkan spec (there are definitely some fundamental differences in memory barrier guarantees).
In short, making Windows work natively on ARM Macs would require a lot of political goodwill and information exchange between two companies, would cost millions of $, occupy time of expert software engineers, likely take a significant amount of time, and the end result would be a product that’s likely buggy and lacks features. it would be hardly any better than running Windows in a VM, which requires zero investment from Microsoft, already takes care of the difficult low level stuff and will sell them just as many licenses.
Which brings us to the final point that many seem to overlook: Microsoft does not care a bit about users running windows on a mac. They never produced any support for Bootcamp or VM installations. This is just not an interesting user base for them and a negligible source of revenue. They make money of Mac users by selling them office, cloud and enterprise products, all of which run on macOS. That’s where the money is. Just look at the MS revenue structure.
Last edited:
Isn't the current situation a win-win situation for Apple and Microsoft? M1 computer users who need Windows have two choices: virtualize/emulate Windows or buy a Windows PC. If they virtualize/emulate Windows, they will buy a more performant Apple computer, so Apple makes more money. If they buy a Windows PC, Microsoft makes more money. Neither has any motivation to change the status quo.
Agreed. It’s not impossible, but highly
I run the only two apps that Microsoft don’t have a native Mac version of on my Air M1 (Visio and Project) with Parallels.
I did mention this elsewhere. There are no kernel level patches required but the device manufacturer (in this case Apple) would need to make all drivers for their hardware available as native Windows drivers. This is the single biggest hurdle from effort perspective. Windows itself could run with UEFI drivers alone but the experience would be subpar. But even then, I doubt Apple has put any effort in developing UEFI for their HW.
I do not think that you can conclude this. However with respect to Windows, there is a clear definition of what Microsoft does provide and what interfaces have to be implemented and what drivers have to be provided by the OEM. This model even includes Microsofts own devices like the Surface Pro X, where a significant part of the driver stack including all UEFI comes from Qualcomm.
Last edited:
Something like that. With the caveat that Microsoft doesn’t even make that much money from selling Windows. The bulk of their revenue comes from MS office, MS cloud and corporate products. Which is why they give you native Mac versions for those products. These days, Microsoft cares much more about you using MS office and teams than they care about you running Windows. Their product portfolio is already diverse enough.
Of course there are. Just look at the patches Asahi team had to submit for Linux. Apple Silicon uses - among other things - custom interrupt handling, custom MMU, custom inter-CPU communication protocols, custom hardware configuration and discovery (no, they don’t use EFI), custom boot mechanism, custom security, even their NVMe protocol is not really NVME and needs a special driver… none of this is standard ARM system interface.
Apples Buildquality is High Standart ofcourse there are also some problems but apple works to fixes them. Acer on the Other side its build quality is terrible. they overhead, gpus constantly dies. many customers come into my store to get thair acer laptops fixed. mostly its gpu issues. this is a general issue on acer since years
Apple already has Parallels as a freemium app in the Mac App Store—so they’re pocketing the cut of the subscription fees when you have to have the premium subscription to run Windows in a VM. With a boot camp type solution they’re missing out on recurring payments.
Because Microsoft has sold exclusive rights to the ARM processor versions of Windows to Qualcomm. Which is why other companies that have historically provided emulators or virtual machines haven’t done so yet. I’ve heard that MS has quietly removed code intentionally put into their ARM Windows VM that messed with Apple so if you are brave enough and knowledgeable enough you can try to install a VM.
Short answer is that Qualcomm wants to screw up Apple because Apple has had a frosty few years with Qualcomm and they (Qualcomm) want to make their own ARM processor for Windows. I haven’t heard anything lately about Qualcomm’s progress so I think that MS is letting customers install their Windows ARM code but not supporting it if there are problems, on Apple M series chips.
They did. And they sold those rights to Qualcomm. I have no idea if Apple was even interested in trying to get a license.
What? Parallels with Windows on ARM VM support was launched, like, last year? Wine/Crossover have been emulating Windows execution environment on ARM Macs even longer.
None of this has anything to do with Qualcomm. People are blowing this licensing agreement entirely out of proportions.
They didn't sell any rights to Qualcomm. And what do you mean by "trying to get a license"? Microsoft does not "license their OS" as a thing to anyone, they sell individual licenses to users.
From some obviously uniformed site called MacRumors:
There's No Windows for Arm Macs Yet Because Microsoft Has Secret Exclusivity Deal With Qualcomm
Microsoft has declined to make a version of Windows 11 available for Apple's M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max Macs that are built on an Arm architecture,...
www.macrumors.com
These statements seem to be at odds. You buy Macs for macOS, but having bootcamp/emu is important to you? You find the hardware unimpressive, but you'd rather run Windows on a Mac than on a PC?
Windows 11 ARM actually runs several of the applications we use for work (whereas Windows 10 ARM refused to). This is nice because that means that I technically can now ask for M1 MBPs for work (I have an Intel MBP for work and use Parallels to run company applications that need Windows). So for me, I realize I'm not the vast majority of Mac users but I would definitely appreciate more compatibility. But I don't expect Apple to go out of its way for little ole me.
I'm just happy as heck that as of last year, I can officially use Mac for work (first time work let us) (even if I have to run some applications in Parallels). lol.
Sure is weird being in a meeting being the only one with a Mac, LOL.
I'm just happy as heck that as of last year, I can officially use Mac for work (first time work let us) (even if I have to run some applications in Parallels). lol.
Sure is weird being in a meeting being the only one with a Mac, LOL.
Boot camp was made for plater drives that had a huge amount space on them! It was a pationioning program that formatted the partition to Fat23 that the Windows installer could see and report it NTFS! Then it would lastly put drivers in that Windows install to see all video drivers, the bit and drivers for everything inside your Mac! The funny thing back in day many noobs reformatted their OS X partition, I always found that funny!
Apple doesn’t do this because of many reasons. The biggest are: A) There is not significant demand for it, B) it existed for years and was only used by a niche few, C) Apple runs a streamlined business model and this is totally against that, and D) Native Apps on Desktops written in non-cross platform languages is a decreasing market.
A) I worked at a Fortune 30 company that has been moving most of its network engineers (5,000+ of them) to Macs. All good those users have the option to get VMWare Fusion to run Windows native apps, but 90% of the apps and systems used these days are web based on written for multiple platforms natively.
B) VMWare Fusion, & Parallels have existed with Coherence type mode for over 10 years. This makes Windows exe files run similar in style to native Mac apps. Probably less than 3% of Apple Users use this.
Boot Camp, Virtual box, WINE and Winebottler have existed as well that whole time for free, and has very low usage.
C) Apple is not about doing everything, Apple is about doing a handful of things well. That’s why Apple doesn’t build their own search engine, Social Network, Game Console, Etc. Apple stays to a few core business it excels at. And it only does this in areas it can do something special and better. Apple is not about making bad versions of things that already exist. Do you complain why doesn’t McDonalds make a Whopper? Apple is not about making knock off products. They are about making (whet they believe) is the best version of a product.
D) Outside of games, most apps are going away and moving to online services. Which do you think is growing more Online Word Processors like Google Docs, Zoho Suite, etc, or Microsoft Office as a desktop app. Even the growth area of Microsoft Office is its online usage. In a multi device world where fewer and fewer people are relying on just a desktop computer. Most Apps except very specific ones are moving to universal apps that run Windows/Mac/Linux/iPhone/android compliant or they are loving to browser based.
A) I worked at a Fortune 30 company that has been moving most of its network engineers (5,000+ of them) to Macs. All good those users have the option to get VMWare Fusion to run Windows native apps, but 90% of the apps and systems used these days are web based on written for multiple platforms natively.
B) VMWare Fusion, & Parallels have existed with Coherence type mode for over 10 years. This makes Windows exe files run similar in style to native Mac apps. Probably less than 3% of Apple Users use this.
Boot Camp, Virtual box, WINE and Winebottler have existed as well that whole time for free, and has very low usage.
C) Apple is not about doing everything, Apple is about doing a handful of things well. That’s why Apple doesn’t build their own search engine, Social Network, Game Console, Etc. Apple stays to a few core business it excels at. And it only does this in areas it can do something special and better. Apple is not about making bad versions of things that already exist. Do you complain why doesn’t McDonalds make a Whopper? Apple is not about making knock off products. They are about making (whet they believe) is the best version of a product.
D) Outside of games, most apps are going away and moving to online services. Which do you think is growing more Online Word Processors like Google Docs, Zoho Suite, etc, or Microsoft Office as a desktop app. Even the growth area of Microsoft Office is its online usage. In a multi device world where fewer and fewer people are relying on just a desktop computer. Most Apps except very specific ones are moving to universal apps that run Windows/Mac/Linux/iPhone/android compliant or they are loving to browser based.
From some obviously uniformed site called MacRumors:
There's No Windows for Arm Macs Yet Because Microsoft Has Secret Exclusivity Deal With Qualcomm
Microsoft has declined to make a version of Windows 11 available for Apple's M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max Macs that are built on an Arm architecture,...
The most plausible part of that article is that Microsoft might have an exclusive deal with Qualcomm. Mind, it's an exclusive deal and very far from any "OS licensing" or "selling rights". The rest of the article is a baseless speculation. Qualcomm deal or no Qualcomm deal, this does not change the includible technical — and political — hurdles of bringing Windows to Apple Silicon, nor does it change the economical reality os such an enterprise. That it would be expensive, difficulty and mostly of very little business interest to both Apple and Microsoft.
The only "real" effect of the Qualcomm exclusivity deal is that a private customer like you and me cannot buy an official Windows on ARM end license to run on their own hardware. Which is barely a problem since one can get these licenses for free via the Windows Insider program anyway.