Microsoft confirms that Windows 11 will not support Apple M1

[Bandaman]

This is quite a blow for Parallels. Personally I am trying to move to MacOS but I depend on Windows only software... So my M1 Mini actually is mainly used for the Parallels W10 VM (which I also use to avoid installing non native software on Apple Silicon). I guess Windows 10 should be fine for a couple more years, but at this point I'll think twice about, for instance, buying a new Apple Silicon Mac with 32 GB RAM so that I can allocate 16 to the Windows VM. And the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Microsoft does not want people to move to Macs and use Windows just for Windows only software at best....They want them to buy Windows devices, not Macs....

Again, Windows 11 works perfectly in Parallels. Been running it for a few days now. I'm on the developer preview build. There are some apps here and there that aren't supported on Windows ARM (yet), but most of my apps seem to work. My advice so far though would be ... save a screenshot of your system working in Parallels before you install a new app ... restart the VM ... and see if you get either a blue or green screen. If you do, roll back the snapshot and don't bother with that app until it gets support. 90% of my apps work having done this process. Was having a lot of headaches at first. The biggest culprits seem to be apps like Macrium, Acronis, and other apps that install boot level drivers meant for AMD and Intel PCs.



Also, Microsoft sucks for not having native support for M1s. It literally makes no sense.

 

[Bandaman]

Is there any kind of firmware setting on the motherboard that can simulate TPM, even if it doesn't have the chip? It would really stink if you can't run it on a 2020 system. BTW, my mb doesn't have the chip but can emulate it in firmware so I can run W11. I tried it when the dev version was released but it hosed my system and it took me a couple of hours to recover so I've been a bit shy about trying it again.

You don't need a TPM for Windows 11 using a VM in Parallels. If it asks, there is a setting to enable a virtual TPM. hardware-wise, on unsupported PCs, you can install a TPM add-on, but for Macs it's a no go if they don't have it.

 

[Maconplasma]

Windows 11 has been running perfectly for me in Parallels on my M1. Would be nice if it was native. Dunno why Microsoft isn't supporting it ... kind of stupid.

LOL why is it stupid? Microsoft's OS runs on much of the world's computers. This is coming from a Mac user who can't stand Windows or Microsoft. But Microsoft gains nothing by supporting W11 on M1 Macs, absolutely nothing. It's a very small amount of people.

I guess they don't want me purchasing another copy of Windows. Why do they hate more streams of income?

I know you're being serious but I find this line of text quite comical. The majority of people on forums (that I have read) that installed Windows on their Macs tend to NOT pay for a Windows license. Instead they run a non-activated version allowing the annoying activation pop up to appear and they don't care if they have a certain amount of loss of functionality. Microsoft is NOT making money from Mac users installing Windows. It's already enough that it's a niche audience installing Windows on their Macs but with much of them not paying one red cent for it just gives Microsoft another reason not to bother with support.

 

[pshufd]

You can run Windows 11 on your M1 via Parallels. I've replaced most of my my Windows apps with macOS versions/alternatives, but there still some things that just aren't supported on macOS. I would love to abandon ship entirely someday.

There's a Crossover version that I can run on M1 but performance is horrible. It uses about 75% of CPU resources. It uses about 10% on my Windows system which is only a little faster than the M1. I would need a dedicated Mini to run this program.

 

[jdb8167]

Again, Windows 11 works perfectly in Parallels.

And if the release version of Windows 11 on Arm blocks Parallels you are out of luck. There is currently no way to know what Microsoft is planning. They could sue Parallels/Corel to remove Windows support as well. Microsoft doesn’t seem inclined to welcome M1 virtualization which makes it potentially an unreliable solution.

 

[pshufd]

LOL why is it stupid? Microsoft's OS runs on much of the world's computers. This is coming from a Mac user who can't stand Windows or Microsoft. But Microsoft gains nothing by supporting W11 on M1 Macs, absolutely nothing. It's a very small amount of people.

I know you're being serious but I find this line of text quite comical. The majority of people on forums (that I have read) that installed Windows on their Macs tend to NOT pay for a Windows license. Instead they run a non-activated version allowing the annoying activation pop up to appear and they don't care if they have a certain amount of loss of functionality. Microsoft is NOT making money from Mac users installing Windows. It's already enough that it's a niche audience installing Windows on their Macs but with much of them not paying one red cent for it just gives Microsoft another reason not to bother with support.

I do this on my Windows system - run a Windows VM without an active license. I agree that most run it unactivated. Those that activate it don't know that you can run in unactivated. This, of course, doesn't apply to corporate users.

 

[pshufd]

And if the release version of Windows 11 on Arm blocks Parallels you are out of luck. There is currently no way to know what Microsoft is planning. They could sue Parallels/Corel to remove Windows support as well. Microsoft doesn’t seem inclined to welcome M1 virtualization which makes it potentially an unreliable solution.

VMware and VirtualBox block macOS running on non-Apple hardware so it would be fairly simple for Microsoft to ask Parallels to block W11 on non-official systems. And you always have to remember that what you have that isn't officially supported can be taken away from you. Unless you run completely disconnected from the network.

 

[Bandaman]

LOL why is it stupid? Microsoft's OS runs on much of the world's computers. This is coming from a Mac user who can't stand Windows or Microsoft. But Microsoft gains nothing by supporting W11 on M1 Macs, absolutely nothing. It's a very small amount of people.

They don't lose anything either. It just seems petty.

 

[Bandaman]

And if the release version of Windows 11 on Arm blocks Parallels you are out of luck. There is currently no way to know what Microsoft is planning. They could sue Parallels/Corel to remove Windows support as well. Microsoft doesn’t seem inclined to welcome M1 virtualization which makes it potentially an unreliable solution.

It's emulated software. I don't know why they would block emulated software. I can't imagine them doing that. But anything is possible.

 

[pshufd]

It's emulated software. I don't know why they would block emulated software. I can't imagine them doing that. But anything is possible.

Apple requested VirtualBox and VMware block macOS installations on non-Apple hardware and they both complied.

 

[deconstruct60]

Honestly, that whole TPM requirement is going to be a major barrier. A system I built in 2020 with a 10th-gen Intel doesn't have a TPM

Shouldn’t be if vendors were doing what they were suppose to be doing

“….

• Since July 28, 2016, all new device models, lines or series (or if you are updating the hardware configuration of an existing model, line or series with a major update, such as CPU, graphic cards) must implement and enable by default TPM 2.0 (details in section 3.7 of the Minimum hardware requirements page). The requirement to enable TPM 2.0 only applies to the manufacturing of new devices. For TPM recommendations for specific Windows features, see TPM and Windows Features.

…”
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/information-protection/tpm/tpm-recommendations


there are vendors shaving money off their boards cheaper hardware and/or cheaper firmware . There are also those who pushed loopholes because to be in compliance also pragmatically means getting past supporting legacy BIOS boot ( get to point where dump that boat anchor from UEFI ) .

also lack of checking buy consumers that gqeneric , coast board 27 is actually cleanly certified for Windows 10 …. versus general sssumption that it just has to be .


there is also a camp over on the radical freesoft side that has ragged against TPM. Some board vendors caved to them , but that wasn’t a freebie move. ( Microsoft was saying quite the opposite ) .

TPM and the hardware virtualization support were a line in the sand coming for more than several years now.


P.S. As a 2016 requirement Apple probably knew this was coming all during M-series development . If they arent ready that probably was a deliberate choice by them .

 

[deconstruct60]

I am not able to see any settings on the motherboard for it.

There are various different names for it . Sometimes it is labeled TEE mode or some obtuse security mode where letters ‘TPM’ don’t appear . It isn’t consistent across UEFI implementations and board vendors can use a variety of different UEFI firmware vendors across their product line .

 

[Maconplasma]

I do this on my Windows system - run a Windows VM without an active license. I agree that most run it unactivated. Those that activate it don't know that you can run in unactivated. This, of course, doesn't apply to corporate users.

I greatly disagree with this. Anyone installing Windows on their Mac (Let alone anyone that even knows you could before M1) KNOWS that you can run it unactivated. That's crazy the you would believe that they wouldn't know. Most people installing Windows on their Mac are techies. The rest of the world through the Intel Mac years never knew that Windows could be installed via Bootcamp. Many didn't know what Bootcamp or VM's even are.

 

[pshufd]

It's called PTT on my motherboard.

 

[pshufd]

I greatly disagree with this. Anyone installing Windows on their Mac (Let alone anyone that even knows you could before M1) KNOWS that you can run it unactivated. That's crazy the you would believe that they wouldn't know. Most people installing Windows on their Mac are techies. The rest of the world through the Intel Mac years never knew that Windows could be installed via Bootcamp. Many didn't know what Bootcamp or VM's even are.

I answer people asking how to run Windows on their first Macs and they don't know that you can run it unactivated. Not everyone is up on virtual machines. You may have students getting a Mac for the first time understanding that they can run a Windows VM and just want to know how to go about installing it.

 

[Bandaman]

Apple requested VirtualBox and VMware block macOS installations on non-Apple hardware and they both complied.

Yes, but this is Windows we're talking about, which is installed on billions of machines. macOS is meant to be installed on a handle of hardware.

 

[pshufd]

Yes, but this is Windows we're talking about, which is installed on billions of machines. macOS is meant to be installed on a handle of hardware.

My point is that Microsoft could just ask Parallels not to allow Windows 11 to run on M1 Macs. They don't have to sue them.

 

[Maconplasma]

They don't lose anything either. It just seems petty.

It may seem petty but on the flip side I would say it's petty that Developers ignore Macs when it comes to creating games. No matter how crappy the hardware is on a Windows laptop they still will develop for Windows and not Macs of any kind. Why? For the same reason Microsoft doesn't want to be bothered catering to a niche audience that they won't make a dime doing.

And if you want to know about petty when it comes to Microsoft they still dumb down the Microsoft 365 business package for Mac. The Windows version comes with 2 extra pieces of software but they charge the same amount for both Mac and Windows. THAT'S petty. Why screw over paying customers? Not sure why Mac users who use 365 haven't filed a class action lawsuit over this. Apple certainly gets hit with lawsuits.

 

[jdb8167]

Yes, but this is Windows we're talking about, which is installed on billions of machines. macOS is meant to be installed on a handle of hardware.

It’s hard to talk about Windows on Arm in the same context as Wintel though. It is much more similar to Apple’s MacOS though not exactly because there are a ~1/2 dozen vendors of Arm PCs.

 

[pshufd]

It may seem petty but on the flip side I would say it's petty that Developers ignore Macs when it comes to creating games. No matter how crappy the hardware is on a Windows laptop they still will develop for Windows and not Macs of any kind. Why? For the same reason Microsoft doesn't want to be bothered catering to a niche audience that they won't make a dime doing.

Purely a business decision. They are risking capital (their own or investors) and they want to get the best return that they can on that capital. That is literally their job.

 

[Maconplasma]

They don't lose anything either. It just seems petty.

And yes they do lose something. It's this thing called time and wasted R&D because then they would have to support it.

 

[Maconplasma]

Purely a business decision. They are risking capital (their own or investors) and they want to get the best return that they can on that capital. That is literally their job.

Are you talking about game developers or Microsoft? Because if you were talking about MS then what you're saying makes no sense. They are making money on 365. Why short Mac customers. If you're talking about game developers much of them are entrepreneurs and it's to their advantage to develop for Mac rather than turn their noses up at it.

 

[pshufd]

Are you talking about game developers or Microsoft? Because if you were talking about MS then what you're saying makes no sense. They are making money on 365. Why short Mac customers. If you're talking about game developers much of them are entrepreneurs and it's to their advantage to develop for Mac rather than turn their noses up at it.

Game Developers.

I used to work for a company and we have two base platforms: Linux and Windows. If someone wanted us to port to their platform, they had to pay us to do so. It's easy to say that entrepreneurs should do this or that but it's quite a different matter if it's your own money on the line. Something like 95% of small businesses fail; you really want to minimize risks if you are risking your own capital.

 

[JMacHack]

There’s a key phrase in that statement that says “as of right now”.

Which is different from “not for the foreseeable future” or “snowballs chance in hell”

I’m sure a future version of Windows will be available for Apple Silicon

 

[Maconplasma]

Game Developers.

I used to work for a company and we have two base platforms: Linux and Windows. If someone wanted us to port to their platform, they had to pay us to do so. It's easy to say that entrepreneurs should do this or that but it's quite a different matter if it's your own money on the line. Something like 95% of small businesses fail; you really want to minimize risks if you are risking your own capital.

Same reason why Microsoft doesn't want W11 running on Macs. It would cost them money and time to support it. Frankly I don't think they even want W11 running on Macs anyway. Their latest ads show them dissuading people from buying Macs or doing damage control in order to not lose their own customers to Apple's products. Giving W11 full access to Apple hardware defeats their own ads. I'm perfectly fine with it. If people need Windows so badly to be installed on a Mac then they are buying the wrong computer in the first place. They should be buying a Windows PC.

I have been on Mac exclusively for the past 25 years and while once I bought that crappy Virtual PC years ago to run a Windows-only business software that's all behind me. I buy Macs to run Mac software.