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

[leman]

Why is everybody acting like Bootcamp doesn’t already exist, and has never been a third party solution?

Because bootcamp is not emulating Windows on a Mac. Bootcamp is a convenient utility for preparing Intel Macs (which are regular x86 PCs for the most part) to natively boot Windows. Two very different things.

And regarding your previous comment: sure, Bootcamp was a thing and there was a group of users who relied on it actively (myself included). But let's not confuse the chicken and with the egg here. Bootcamp was there because Intel Macs are compatible with Windows on the fundamental hardware layer. All Apple had to do is make sure their EFI implementation was not completely broken and provide the occasional odd platform driver for their custom hardware components (where they delivered only the bare minimum, like hard-coding the dGPU to always be on). Everything else (GPU, CPU, system drivers) was the regular stock Windows stuff. No such drivers exist for Apple Silicon and making them would be a major effort. The "dream" of native Windows on Apple Silicon is far-fetched and unrealistic. It is a fundamentally different problem than Bootcamp.

So let's just focus on realistic solutions that will work just as well — virtualisation. Want to play games or running demanding Windows-only software on ARM Macs? Push Microsoft to improve their Windows on ARM subsystem, adding support for proprietary M1 x86 emulation features and push Apple to add low-level compatibility features to Metal that would make DX12/Vulkan emulation easier. These things are much more feasible than expecting them to develop and maintain a full driver stack.

 

[leman]

Licensing would be the biggest thing. The Windows APIs are copyrighted, and others have gotten in a lot of trouble doing it.

Wine has been "doing it" for almost two decades. So far no problems for some reason.

We just need to wait for the Microsoft/Qualcomm exclusivity agreement to expire, so Microsoft can sell Windows for ARM, then we can just use Bootcamp, for that software that is Windows only.

You can go on and download a perfectly legal copy of Windows from Microsoft directly. Why don't you go and use Bootcamp for that one? Problem solved, right?

 

[robco74]

Boot Camp doesn't work on Apple Silicon, only on Intel-based Macs:

If you want to run Windows apps on Apple Silicon, the only current options are emulation via CrossOver, or by running WoA in a VM, which Microsoft tacitly allows, but WoA is currently only licensed to OEMs.

Also, there was initially a third-party solution to allow Macs to boot Windows, Apple later offered their official Boot Camp solution.

 

[wonderings]

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.

How does this undermine everything Apple stands for? Apple literally made Bootcamp to simplify the process of installing Windows NATIVELY, not emulated, on intel Macs. They made it as easy as possible to do this, and it was super simple and automated for the most part, just followed the onscreen instructions. To me this is what had set Apple apart, you could run just about any OS virtually or natively with ease. It was touted as a feature:

“Apple has no desire or plan to sell or support Windows, but many customers have expressed their interest to run Windows on Apple’s superior hardware now that we use Intel processors,” Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said at the time. “We think Boot Camp makes the Mac even more appealing to Windows users considering making the switch.”
Source: https://www.cultofmac.com/474771/today-apple-history-mac-users-can-run-windows-boot-camp/

You can technically still run Windows on a M1 Mac virtually. I run Windows 11 ARM on my M1 Max. Runs great, I have 32 gigs of RAM which makes a huge difference as well as you can give it more RAM which helps a VM run better. I can't even tell when it is running, no performance issues at all on both my M1 Max and 2014 5K iMac with 32 gigs of ram.

**edit**

Sorry misread the original post about running Windows app inside of MacOS, not inside Windows as a VM or Bootcamp. I think that would be a disaster waiting to happen to try and even make that work.

 

[Irishman]

Boot Camp doesn't work on Apple Silicon, only on Intel-based Macs:

View attachment 1990959
If you want to run Windows apps on Apple Silicon, the only current options are emulation via CrossOver, or by running WoA in a VM, which Microsoft tacitly allows, but WoA is currently only licensed to OEMs.

Also, there was initially a third-party solution to allow Macs to boot Windows, Apple later offered their official Boot Camp solution.

Since Apple's official Boot Camp has been around since 2006, and is still supported in Monterey IF you're running Intel in your Mac, the period we're now in, the past 2 years of the ARM transition is just 2 out of 14 years.

You're going to have a hard time of it making the case that Apple is done with supporting running native Windows on Apple Silicon. You're aware that Windows on ARM is a thing first developed for Microsoft and their Surface devices. We're just waiting, I think, for the exclusive license between Microsoft and Qualcomm to expire.

 

[robco74]

Getting Windows to boot on Intel-based Macs was relatively straightforward. Both macOS and Windows used a similar boot process. That is no longer the case with Apple Silicon. It would take quite a bit of effort to boot WoA on Apple Silicon. Apple would not only need to support the Windows boot process, but would need to provide Windows drivers for all of the custom hardware, like the GPU.

So far, Apple has indicated that the preferred and supported path for running another OS on Apple Silicon is virtualization. Once the Qualcomm exclusivity expires, Microsoft will likely sell an official license to run WoA in a VM. They have given no indication that they would work on booting WoA on Apple Silicon, nor has Apple given any indication that they would alter their software to enable it.

 

[wonderings]

Getting Windows to boot on Intel-based Macs was relatively straightforward. Both macOS and Windows used a similar boot process. That is no longer the case with Apple Silicon. It would take quite a bit of effort to boot WoA on Apple Silicon. Apple would not only need to support the Windows boot process, but would need to provide Windows drivers for all of the custom hardware, like the GPU.

So far, Apple has indicated that the preferred and supported path for running another OS on Apple Silicon is virtualization. Once the Qualcomm exclusivity expires, Microsoft will likely sell an official license to run WoA in a VM. They have given no indication that they would work on booting WoA on Apple Silicon, nor has Apple given any indication that they would alter their software to enable it.

Windows 11 ARM runs great virtually, as does Windows 10 on an Intel Mac. Way back I used bootcamp, but as computers got better and better I quickly opted out of partitioning my drive for Windows and switched to running full force in VM. I would guess there are few people who actually need to natively run Windows on a Mac. I run them side by side all day long on both an Intel iMac and M1 Max and I would never be able to tell I am losing some resources to the VM.

 

[leman]

Since Apple's official Boot Camp has been around since 2006, and is still supported in Monterey IF you're running Intel in your Mac, the period we're now in, the past 2 years of the ARM transition is just 2 out of 14 years.

You're going to have a hard time of it making the case that Apple is done with supporting running native Windows on Apple Silicon. You're aware that Windows on ARM is a thing first developed for Microsoft and their Surface devices. We're just waiting, I think, for the exclusive license between Microsoft and Qualcomm to expire.

I find this stance very puzzling, especially after we just spent multiple pages discussing the technical challenge of getting Windows on ARM work on AS. The claim that bootcamp sets a precedent is a fallacy which ignores the real situation. Intel Macs we’re just regular x86 PCs, with standard interface and standard hardware. All of this was directly and seamlessly supported by Windows. In fact, people had Windows and Linux running on Intel Macs before Bootcamp with little difficulty. Bootcamp was just a Mac app for easier Windows installation. That’s it.

Apple Silicon is an entirely different story. It does not use the standard ARM system interface, it does not use EFI, it uses proprietary hardware with undocumented interfaces. Windows kernel doesn’t know how to run on this hardware and there are no Windows drivers available. It’s an entirely different story. Saying that Windows on AS is surely coming is like saying that a new Maglev train will surely run on conventional track soon just because the same company used to make conventional trains.

The very simple fact is that running Windows natively on AS would require a lot of cooperation between the two companies, exchange of internal documentation, dedication of large teams of expert software engineers over a long period of time, tons of money and ongoing support. It’s not impossible, but very very unlikely. There is just not enough profit for either of the companies to commit so much to get so little.

 

[Irishman]

Getting Windows to boot on Intel-based Macs was relatively straightforward. Both macOS and Windows used a similar boot process. That is no longer the case with Apple Silicon. It would take quite a bit of effort to boot WoA on Apple Silicon. Apple would not only need to support the Windows boot process, but would need to provide Windows drivers for all of the custom hardware, like the GPU.

So far, Apple has indicated that the preferred and supported path for running another OS on Apple Silicon is virtualization. Once the Qualcomm exclusivity expires, Microsoft will likely sell an official license to run WoA in a VM. They have given no indication that they would work on booting WoA on Apple Silicon, nor has Apple given any indication that they would alter their software to enable it.

Do you have documentation for your claim that the differences between boot processes that you refer to are too much of a challenge for Apple to address? What would you say the percentage might be, between what they've already done in running Windows natively on Intel, and what they'd need to do in order to successfully run Windows on Apple Silicon?

Also, since I don't know this about you, I'll ask: are you speaking as a developer?

Finally, where and when did Apple indicate "that the preferred and supported path for running another OS on Apple Silicon is virtualization"?

 

[robco74]

Check out Asahi Linux and their challenges getting Linux to boot on M1. Here is Craig discussing Windows on M1. Here is the developer documentation for virtualization. And here is Microsoft stating that running Windows on Apple Silicon is not supported.

 

[leman]

Im not the person whom yiu quoted, but it might as well be directed at me.

Do you have documentation for your claim that the differences between boot processes that you refer to are too much of a challenge for Apple to address?

Yes, check out the Asahi Linux wiki and blog. A lot of things are documented there.

What would you say the percentage might be, between what they've already done in running Windows natively on Intel, and what they'd need to do in order to successfully run Windows on Apple Silicon?

Well, first of all, Windows will likely need kernel patches to support the custom system model of Apple Silicon. Then, device discovery and configuration is a problem. Either Apple will need to emulate EFI somehow or Windows will need support for ADT.

And then, the most fun part, the entire driver stack. Who do you think is going to write and maintain the OpenGL, OpenCL, Vulkan and DX drivers?

Also, since I don't know this about you, I'll ask: are you speaking as a developer?

I am speaking as a developer.

Finally, where and when did Apple indicate "that the preferred and supported path for running another OS on Apple Silicon is virtualization"?

There is an interview where Federighi states that they are not considering native Windows. That’s pretty much the only clear statement we have.

 

[Xiao_Xi]

running Windows natively on AS would require a lot of cooperation between the two companies, exchange of internal documentation, dedication of large teams of expert software engineers over a long period of time, tons of money and ongoing support

How would OpenGL/Vulkan compatible Windows applications run on Apple GPU? Can you imagine Apple pushing developers to make their apps compatible with Metal for macOs while helping to develop MoltenVK/MoltenGL for this new "Bootcamp 2"?

 

[Irishman]

Check out Asahi Linux and their challenges getting Linux to boot on M1. Here is Craig discussing Windows on M1. Here is the developer documentation for virtualization. And here is Microsoft stating that running Windows on Apple Silicon is not supported.

Thank you for all that, but you’re still inferring a lot more than it seems that the evidence can bear.

True or false: Microsoft’s statement that running Windows on Apple Silicon is not supported can just as easily mean that Apple isn’t paying them to support it.

You’re aware that only Qualcomm has an exclusive right to run Windows on ARM, which doesn’t mean that Apple can never run it, like in a Boot Camp scenario?

Again, you didn’t answer my question about if you’re a dev or not.

As for the Craig F quote that you linked to: it was from an interview from November 2020, when asked about whether it was possible for Apple Silicon Macs to run Windows natively. He said what I’ve been saying, that it’s up to Microsoft to license it out. “As for Windows running natively on the machine, "that's really up to Microsoft”.

That’s literally what he says in the article.

Maybe I missed the part where he said that VMs and emulation were the only ways that Apple was supporting?

 

[robco74]

Thank you for all that, but you’re still inferring a lot more than it seems that the evidence can bear.

True or false: Microsoft’s statement that running Windows on Apple Silicon is not supported can just as easily mean that Apple isn’t paying them to support it.

The evidence would indicate that neither Microsoft nor Apple have any interest in supporting Windows booting on Apple Silicon. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, share.

This isn't a true/false question. There are many reasons why it is not supported. It isn't a matter of overcoming a single obstacle, or Apple simply writing Microsoft a check.

You’re aware that only Qualcomm has an exclusive right to run Windows on ARM, which doesn’t mean that Apple can never run it, like in a Boot Camp scenario?

There are few if any certainties, only probabilities. Given the currently available evidence, the probability of Apple Silicon natively booting Windows is low. As for running in a VM, that ball is in Microsoft's court.

Again, you didn’t answer my question about if you’re a dev or not.

I work in the industry, I even write code, but no, I am not a dev. Not that it matters for this particular question. The limitations aren't entirely technical. The business case would need to be made to both Microsoft and Apple that it would be in their mutual best interest to make this happen.

 

[Irishman]

Robco74 and leman,

Please re-read my edited post #214, because it hopefully will remind you that Craig F didn’t say what you think he said.

In fact, he only talked about native Windows:

“As for Windows running natively on the machine, "that's really up to Microsoft”.

 

[EvilMonk]

I’ve been a Mac user since the Motorola 68030 / Macintosh LC III (which I still have in working condition)… for the 30 years I’ve been a Mac user, running windows apps on Mac hasn’t been something a significant enough percentage of users wanted / needed when buying a new Mac… so it won’t happen…

 

[leman]

How would OpenGL/Vulkan compatible Windows applications run on Apple GPU? Can you imagine Apple pushing developers to make their apps compatible with Metal for macOs while helping to develop MoltenVK/MoltenGL for this new "Bootcamp 2"?

That’s the point, it wouldn’t, because nobody will write the necessary drivers.

True or false: Microsoft’s statement that running Windows on Apple Silicon is not supported can just as easily mean that Apple isn’t paying them to support it.

Why would Apple Pay MS to make Windows compatible with AS? Even more, why would Apple give MS they need to make Windows compatible with AS?

You’re aware that only Qualcomm has an exclusive right to run Windows on ARM, which doesn’t mean that Apple can never run it, like in a Boot Camp scenario?

Of course it is theoretically possible to make Windows compatible with AS, nobody would deny it. It would just take much more money and effort to do it than anyone is willing to spend. I mean, it is theoretically possible that US introduces Chinese as a mandatory official language, but it’s not like that is going to happen, right?

As for the Craig F quote that you linked to: it was from an interview from November 2020, when asked about whether it was possible for Apple Silicon Macs to run Windows natively. He said what I’ve been saying, that it’s up to Microsoft to license it out. “As for Windows running natively on the machine, "that's really up to Microsoft”.

That’s literally what he says in the article.

I know which article you mean, I read it. It’s that article that started this dumb rumor that Apple is working on native Windows. The very simple thing is, it’s what article claims Craig said. It’s not even direct quote. It’s just what the journalists wrote. Given the fact that we literally have Craig on video stating “we are not talking native boot” and the fact that AS does not run standard ARM protocols, I very much suspect that it was a misunderstanding on the interviewer/editor side. Probably they asked for running Windows and Craig said, sure, we can (meaning virtualization) but the interviewer misinterpreted the answer.

Maybe I missed the part where he said that VMs and emulation were the only ways that Apple was supporting?

It‘s in a video interview with Gruber, you can find it on YouTube. I actually had it bookmarked:

The relevant part is at 01:02:50


P.S. The interesting thing is that Apple does not restrict a third-party OS from booting directly. The tools are there, you can go ahead. But you have to reverse-engineer all the custom stuff and good luck with that…

 

[Tagbert]

That’s the point, it wouldn’t, because nobody will write the necessary drivers.



Why would Apple Pay MS to make Windows compatible with AS? Even more, why would Apple give MS they need to make Windows compatible with AS?



Of course it is theoretically possible to make Windows compatible with AS, nobody would deny it. It would just take much more money and effort to do it than anyone is willing to spend. I mean, it is theoretically possible that US introduces Chinese as a mandatory official language, but it’s not like that is going to happen, right?




I know which article you mean, I read it. It’s that article that started this dumb rumor that Apple is working on native Windows. The very simple thing is, it’s what article claims Craig said. It’s not even direct quote. It’s just what the journalists wrote. Given the fact that we literally have Craig on video stating “we are not talking native boot” and the fact that AS does not run standard ARM protocols, I very much suspect that it was a misunderstanding on the interviewer/editor side. Probably they asked for running Windows and Craig said, sure, we can (meaning virtualization) but the interviewer misinterpreted the answer.




It‘s in a video interview with Gruber, you can find it on YouTube. I actually had it bookmarked:

The relevant part is at 01:02:50

Yes, Craig says "we are not direct booting (Bootcamp) any alternate operating systems". He went on to say that the solution would be hypervisor virtualization systems and that those are very efficient on AS.

 

[Irishman]

Leman,

Do you work for a dev that specializes in VMs, like Crossover or Parallels?

Otherwise, I’m really struggling to understand why you have such a hard-on for VMs being “the way”?

Only following the money makes sense to me, because if you’re already aware of that Craig F quote, and have no problem tearing it down as “that damn rumor “, when you know that it was no such thing, you being paid to make that comment against the facts of the matter, is the only answer that makes sense.

 

[robco74]

Wait, so because you disagree, he's automatically a paid shill? Happy to add another troll to my ignore list.

 

[Irishman]

Wait, so because you disagree, he's automatically a paid shill? Happy to add another troll to my ignore list.

At what point did you know that the link to Craig F’s quote did not say what you wanted it to say?

It’s not my fault that I read it more clearly than you did.

 

[jlc1978]

Wine has been "doing it" for almost two decades. So far no problems for some reason.

With rather varying degrees of success.

Windows 11 ARM runs great virtually, as does Windows 10 on an Intel Mac.

Also on an AS MBP. Excel s actually faster in the VM than in the Mac OS native version.

Intel Macs we’re just regular x86 PCs, with standard interface and standard hardware. All of this was directly and seamlessly supported by Windows. In fact, people had Windows and Linux running on Intel Macs before Bootcamp with little difficulty. Bootcamp was just a Mac app for easier Windows installation. That’s it.

Which also made Hackintoshes viable. I suspect they are on their last legs as x86 hardware and resultant OS support fades away.

 

[leman]

Leman,

Do you work for a dev that specializes in VMs, like Crossover or Parallels?

Otherwise, I’m really struggling to understand why you have such a hard-on for VMs being “the way”?

Only following the money makes sense to me, because if you’re already aware of that Craig F quote, and have no problem tearing it down as “that damn rumor “, when you know that it was no such thing, you being paid to make that comment against the facts of the matter, is the only answer that makes sense.

Look, I linked you a video where you can actually see and hear Craig saying that Apple was not planning to direct boot Windows. Now, I have had some exposure to low level programming and system interfaces, enough to understand how difficult such a thing would be, so listening to Craig say this makes immediate sense to me. Having him claim that “direct boot is up to Microsoft” does not make any sense to me, because, well, it’s simply not true. It’s not something Microsoft can do without having access to internal Apple technical documentation AND a major continuous investment. And even then it’s not certain that the system would run stably. So given my technical background and the fact that we actually have a REAL video with LIVE Craig directly contradicting the claims of the written interview, it makes much more sense to me to assume that the interviewer misunderstood. Mistakes happen.

And lol, no, I don’t work for any VM company. I also think it’s a bit silly to assume that someone has a financial agenda just because they voice their expert opinion on a forum. I mean, I wished I was paid for writing on MR. I spend way to much time here as it is.

 

[leman]

With rather varying degrees of success.

I was replying to the comment that Windows APIs are copyrighted so nobody is allowed to emulate them. Which is BS. If that would be the case how can Valve even sell Steam Deck?

 

[Krevnik]

Look, I linked you a video where you can actually see and hear Craig saying that Apple was not planning to direct boot Windows. Now, I have had some exposure to low level programming and system interfaces, enough to understand how difficult such a thing would be, so listening to Craig say this makes immediate sense to me. Having him claim that “direct boot is up to Microsoft” does not make any sense to me, because, well, it’s simply not true. It’s not something Microsoft can do without having access to internal Apple technical documentation AND a major continuous investment. And even then it’s not certain that the system would run stably. So given my technical background and the fact that we actually have a REAL video with LIVE Craig directly contradicting the claims of the written interview, it makes much more sense to me to assume that the interviewer misunderstood. Mistakes happen.

Even if we assume Craig said it with those words, I read it more as "it's not our call, go ask them what their plans are". There's nothing in the phrase "It's up to Microsoft" that tells me Apple wants to burn energy on this. The interview you linked does tell me that VMs are where Apple wants to spend energy going forward. To the point of taking control of the low-level stuff in-house and making VMWare/Parallels/etc build on top of Apple frameworks.

It's been a couple decades since I was last poking around booting OSes. Around that time I saw booting being called "the devil's playground". If anything, things are more complex today than they were during the final years of OpenFirmware on PowerPC. Apple's boot process in Apple Silicon is less like EFI than OpenFirmware was, IMO.