That's my perspective too. You can run Windows on Intel Macs but it's not a great experience and you may run into issues way down the road. Fortunately Windows systems are plentiful and there are lots of low-priced options or you can build them yourself.
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.
Microsoft confirms that Windows 11 will not support Apple M1
- Thread starter Javi74
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's my perspective too. You can run Windows on Intel Macs but it's not a great experience and you may run into issues way down the road. Fortunately Windows systems are plentiful and there are lots of low-priced options or you can build them yourself.
Why? If the reason for not supporting the M1 is that Microsoft doesn’t want to cannibalize Surface sales then it seems that the business calculation will only make supporting Apple silicon even a worse decision as the number of ASi Macs increase.
I guess when you put it like that it makes sense, but I feel like ARM is going to have a very big future. Microsoft has been notoriously bad at predicting the future, i.e. the iPhone.
Yes…many have been waiting too long…but the fact is it will probably not happen. We are stuck with two systems. Bootcamp was a good option but that is gone from M1 and beyond UNLESS things change.
This is why Intel Macs are still around. I JUST decided to install bootcamp on my MacBook Pro 2018 (Intel). Windows 10 screams fast on it, but the fans kick in more than wanting to when gaming.
This is probably our only option. Windows 10 on an Intel Mac UNLESS VM’s will support ARM .iso files when Windows 11 is launched (highly doubt it).
Windows 11 runs amazingly good with VMWare Fusion 12 on (Intel) MacBook Pro 2018. But for gaming…only Windows 10 bootcamp.
On specifically for Apple Silicon at the "bare Metal" layer? Probably not, that would require Apple and it isn't so much about Microsoft protecting Surface as it would be Apple protecting their own investment priorities.
Microsoft eventually creating a way to license Windows 11 (or 10) for ARM on a virtual machine that is running on some standard ARM v8 (or v9) implementation? Probably over next couple of years (if not sooner... like months).
It really isn't Surface they are protecting. For the moment Microsoft doesn't have a healthy ecosystem of CPU vendor(s) , system vendors for Arm yet. There are folks taking stabs at it but traction is pretty light. Getting that up and off the ground worth far more than doing side-show distraction projects. Windows on Arm going in Azure would be something ( not Qualcomm processors but Ampere ). If Qualcomm or Samsung+AMD-GPU do a serious non-smartphone processor ( e.g. some varaint with 2 or 4 X1 (or X2) cores and some "ittles" ) spending time on that would be higher priority.
Microsoft needs to successfully get Windows 11 out the door and growing. There are gobs of vendors out there that aren't "hostile" to Windows so short term Macs are distraction. But if Microsoft gets it off the ground and growing the a Mac hosted VM could be some "gravy on top" work.
Apple has work to do also .... I'm not sure their virtualization framework supports nested vm/hypervisors
Looks like that feature was pulled from the M1 version of Parallels.
Is nested virtualization supported on the M1?
I have a Windows 10 machine I installed before I had made the purchase (so during the trial period). I saw that nested virtualization, which is what I...
Comments from VMWare also seem less clear, but possible a problem (with shifting away from their own home grown virtualization infrastructure) .
No virtualization and Windows 11 doesn't want to play.
"... In addition to increased reliability, the supported processors increase security capabilities at the chip level. These processors provide virtualization extensions and virtualization performance improvements. Windows 11 supports virtualization-based security (VBS) which enables several security capabilities, including memory integrity, also known as hypervisor-protected code integrity (HVCI). HVCI disables dynamic code injection into the Windows kernel. HVCI also provides driver control and ensures that all drivers loaded meet a policy of allowed drivers set by Microsoft and the user. .."
Update on Windows 11 minimum system requirements and the PC Health Check app
Today’s blog post provides two updates. First, an update on Windows 11 minimum system requirements based, in part, on feedback from the Windows Insider community. Second, information on the updated PC Health Check app that is now available to Windo
blogs.windows.com
that is one of the contributing factors they are using to "axe" older x86 processors. M1 isn't going to get a free ride there. And because Apple is only distantly and indirectly supporting it once Windows is in a virtual machine already... going to need two layers to meet Window's requirements over the long term.
[ Nested virtualization with Linux is going to pop up at some point too... so not just a Windows thing. if Apple is going to pragmatically commerical/production ban bare metal booting and kernel extensions .... they have to put in the work on a robust virtualization framework. If they don't there is no good reason for Microsoft to bother with this long term. ]
VMWare and Microsoft are essentially saying the same thing. VMWare is carefully managing their long term with Microsoft over a wide scope of enterprise interests they have in common. Each are a multiple billion dollar company that have enterprise support contractual obligations to meet. Bug fixing where the problem falls in between two companies products is hard work and doesn't really do much good long term to piss off your potential partners before you need them.
Parallels apparently doesn't care if they step on some toes at Microsoft. They seem to be pretty much focused on how many extra bucks they can make in the next couple of quarters with this inflection point that the M-series transition represents. Being "first" matter most. ( a "better to ask forgiveness , than ask permission " mode).
Long term Microsoft could pull Parallels apps from Microsoft Store, stop signing drivers, stop providing support, etc.
As far as Windows installed where Microsoft doesn't want it to be. Windows has DRM but it isn't super draconian DRM. They try to keep software theft down to a minimally acceptable level, but it isn't a drive to zero.
On specifically for Apple Silicon at the "bare Metal" layer? Probably not, that would require Apple and it isn't so much about Microsoft protecting Surface as it would be Apple protecting their own investment priorities.
Microsoft eventually creating a way to license Windows 11 (or 10) for ARM on a virtual machine that is running on some standard ARM v8 (or v9) implementation? Probably over next couple of years (if not sooner... like months).
It really isn't Surface they are protecting. For the moment Microsoft doesn't have a healthy ecosystem of CPU vendor(s) , system vendors for Arm yet. There are folks taking stabs at it but traction is pretty light. Getting that up and off the ground worth far more than doing side-show distraction projects. Windows on Arm going in Azure would be something ( not Qualcomm processors but Ampere ). If Qualcomm or Samsung+AMD-GPU do a serious non-smartphone processor ( e.g. some varaint with 2 or 4 X1 (or X2) cores and some "ittles" ) spending time on that would be higher priority.
Microsoft needs to successfully get Windows 11 out the door and growing. There are gobs of vendors out there that aren't "hostile" to Windows so short term Macs are distraction. But if Microsoft gets it off the ground and growing the a Mac hosted VM could be some "gravy on top" work.
Apple has work to do also .... I'm not sure their virtualization framework supports nested vm/hypervisors
Looks like that feature was pulled from the M1 version of Parallels.
Is nested virtualization supported on the M1?
I have a Windows 10 machine I installed before I had made the purchase (so during the trial period). I saw that nested virtualization, which is what I...forum.parallels.com
Comments from VMWare also seem less clear, but possible a problem (with shifting away from their own home grown virtualization infrastructure) .
No virtualization and Windows 11 doesn't want to play.
"... In addition to increased reliability, the supported processors increase security capabilities at the chip level. These processors provide virtualization extensions and virtualization performance improvements. Windows 11 supports virtualization-based security (VBS) which enables several security capabilities, including memory integrity, also known as hypervisor-protected code integrity (HVCI). HVCI disables dynamic code injection into the Windows kernel. HVCI also provides driver control and ensures that all drivers loaded meet a policy of allowed drivers set by Microsoft and the user. .."
Update on Windows 11 minimum system requirements and the PC Health Check app
Today’s blog post provides two updates. First, an update on Windows 11 minimum system requirements based, in part, on feedback from the Windows Insider community. Second, information on the updated PC Health Check app that is now available to Windo
that is one of the contributing factors they are using to "axe" older x86 processors. M1 isn't going to get a free ride there. And because Apple is only distantly and indirectly supporting it once Windows is in a virtual machine already... going to need two layers to meet Window's requirements over the long term.
[ Nested virtualization with Linux is going to pop up at some point too... so not just a Windows thing. if Apple is going to pragmatically commerical/production ban bare metal booting and kernel extensions .... they have to put in the work on a robust virtualization framework. If they don't there is no good reason for Microsoft to bother with this long term. ]
Makes sense and what VMWare said also is it is more so about Microsoft Licensing ARM for VM’s then necessarily coding issues (though it also has its challenges).
Is it in the best of Microsoft’s interest to license Windows 11 ARM for VM’s? VMWare has suggested (and hinted possibly that Microsoft may not have any intention on doing this) so it seems that VMWare is moving away from Window’s VM’s and focusing on Linux etc.
If VMWare is not focusing efforts to do this, then it gives us the hint maybe it is a “no go’ or at least “not for some time” when it it worth doing answer to our questions.
Plain and simply, Microsoft won’t want to support M1 because it will cannibalise their future plans for Surface. I guarantee you they’re currently working on a ‘Surface on ARM’ device which will have massive battery life and performance improvements, similar to those seen between Intel / M1 Mac devices.
They’ll want to hold onto that PR win of being able to say “look how much faster/efficient our new Windows on ARM devices are!” - which is significantly undermined if the response is “Yeah we know. We tried it on the M1 already”.
They’ll want to hold onto that PR win of being able to say “look how much faster/efficient our new Windows on ARM devices are!” - which is significantly undermined if the response is “Yeah we know. We tried it on the M1 already”.
Native support as in natively booting? If so, it actually makes a lot of sense. Apple uses non-standard system interfaces and hardware. Microsoft would need to change their kernel and write a whole bunch of complex device drivers to boot a useable system on M1. Why would they want to sink millions of $ into such an enterprise?
I doubt that Mac will cannibalise Surface ARM sales. After all, running an OS in a VM is not the same experience, and Microsoft can give surfaces some Windows-specific hardware features (Windows Hallo etc.). I think on contrary, supporting Windows 11 VMs on Apple Silicon would give Windows on ARM a slightly larger market presence where it is needed (professionals and customers with money) and thus provide more incentives for developers to ship ARM-optimized Windows software.
I rather suspect that M1 Macs already outnumber Surface Xs by a significant factor... I get the impression that the whole Surface range is more of a strategic move to prod OEM PC makers in more adventurous directions than a money-making scheme. Even Windows on ARM could be to hedge their bets and put pressure on Intel to pull their socks up. MS has always been primarily about software and (later) services.
Last I looked, Microsoft was in the business of licensing WoA to OEMs to make their own ARM PCs, just like it does with Windows on x86. I doubt that retail Windows licences are a major seller, and in the case of ARM there isn’t anything to compare with the plethora of “PC Compatible“ hardware that can just run a standard Windows distribution and for which MS can offer support. (If you’ve ever bought a cheap “OEM” Windows license for a DIY PC, part of the license is that the OEM has to be the first-in-line for support)
Seems to me, that’s what Parallels need to do - go to MS and say “Hello, we’d like to sign an OEM licensing agreement for W11 on ARM so that we can bundle it with our hypervisor”. Maybe they’ve done that and MS have said “No” or asked for stupid money - we don’t know (and it’s not the sort of thing you put on a press release). However, that would probably mean that Parallels would have to take on front-line support and deal with compatibility issues.
I think the elephant in the room might be that there just isn’t enough interest for it to be commercially viable. Running Windows on Mac was a killer feature in 2006, but the world has moved on and, at least for mass-market users, 2006’s “Requires Windows XP“ has largely been replaced by “Available for iOS and Android - or run online”... Most web developers can now forget about testing Internet explorer and concentrate on Chrome & Safari, while for legacy code, Windows 11 on ARM isn’t really ideal... Next time I’m getting paid to test something on Windows, I’m buying a Surface Pro (Intel) - then I can test it with touchscreen and not end up chasing bugs that turn out to be Parallels or WoA issues... Yes, some people do have valid use cases, but thats a shrinking niche and it is only going to shrink further, which may be a pain for those people, but isn’t going to attract investment or inspire companies to volunteer as piggy-in-the-middle between customers, Apple and Microsof.
...Meanwhile, MS can now sell you Office 365 whether you’re running Windows, iOS, Android or Chromebook...
I saw a chart of CPU DIY unit shipments for Germany for 2019/2020 for 240K units per year. I had difficulty finding global sales though but, if we extrapolate the population to Europe, US, Asia, then we're easily talking many millions of units. So it's certainly a worthwhile market to go after. People buying parts to build a system are likely to be properly licensed as you went through the trouble to select parts and presumably can afford MB, CPU, RAM, etc. so $90 or more for a Windows license isn't a big deal.
WARM on macOS may be interesting to Parallels because they make a sale on every installation but not for Microsoft where they may or may not make a sale depending on whether or not the user licenses it.
As I always say - if you need Windows, get a Windows system.
Microsoft does not make money from Windows anymore in 2021. So they really don’t care if they loose some MAC customers.
Oh, there is no doubt about this. Hawrdware is just a tiny bit in Microsoft's revenue, and Surfaces are niche machines at most.
The other thing is that folks tend to have this idea that Macs and other ARM laptops compete with each other, which of course is a nonsense. There is no "ARM computer laptop". There is a "Mac vs. PC" laptop, and that's what it is about. Windows on M1 will not cannibalize Surface sales any more than Windows on Intel Macs did. Very few users will say "oh, I'll buy a Surface because I can't run Windows on my Mac". They either want a Mac or they want a Windows computer. In fact, many professionals that want a Mac but require a specific Windows software will probably find an alternative way of running it.
I was actually thinking about it in the opposite way. As in, “I’ll buy a Mac because I can run Windows faster on a MacOS VM than natively on an Arm Surface and I can also run MacOS and iPadOS software.”
If you look at the last decade or so of developer machines, that has been the answer. Buy a Mac because it can run everything: MacOS, Linux, BSD, and Windows. With ASi Macs, that could change and Microsoft has been integrating Linux into their system. It seems to me that Microsoft is trying to become the default developer machine again and allowing Windows on ASi Macs possibly undermines that target.
I agree AND disagree. I agree in that not many users will buy a Surface (or a.n.other Windows laptop) because they can't run Windows on a Mac, but for businesses the switch to M1, the demise of Bootcamp and the lack of official support for M1 from Windows is a pain in the ass. Buying a Mac that you could run Windows on (natively or in Parallels) was an easy decision, because if needed, you could run macOS on it for user A and Windows on it for User B.
For business purposes, I'd love to see a way to run Windows 11 on M1, because it would make my hardware purchasing / device re-allocation SO much easier.
More of VMWare's revenue comes from the enterprise and data center space. They aren't maybe getting around to Linux. Linux is where the bulk of their revenue is at these days. These "workstation virtualization" tools are just a nice to have product for them for "sprinkle on top" profits.
Linux is more of a first tier pier with Windows Server in VMWare's main business.
Second, Apple is focused on Linux. The initial demo they did with the developer transition kit had a segment where there demoed Linux. ( in part because server Linux is "easier" because there is no GUI and fancy graphics to do; just simple 2D graphics. Additionally, most generic Linux have also ignored or fought against boot security and chain of trust. So again easier if the OS doesn't do something. )
VMWare has lots more to do on M1. Apple's stance that VMWare have to toss out their own low level virtualization code and kernel extension means it is more a very long "to do" list and finite resources to get them done. Windows is probably just further down on the to do list on resource allocation. Running Linux, macOS , and Windows in a VM are all second class priority behind getting the tools back to seamless integration into the VMWare product ecosystem. If that doesn't get done extremely well , then it is a "dead" product.
VMWare will have the slower "time to market" (than Parallels ), but it will bring more inertia when it gets going. If they are in , then they are in for the marathon. "Focus" and "speed" sometimes aren't the same thing.
I'm not sure that businesses are going to be falling over themselves to run Windows 11 on anything - let alone Windows 11 for ARM. End of support for Windows 10 is currently slated for October 2025 and there's every reason to suspect that people will hang on to the bitter end - and after - just like previous transitions.
PC/Windows is the default developer machine by a large margin. That doesn't mean to say that the Mac isn't a good developer machine that some developers have chosen, but the PC still dominates. A PC can develop for Windows (duh!), Linux/BSD (using VMs or dual booting, even before WSL), Android. The only real "USP" for developing on Mac is if you're developing for MacOS or iOS and cross-platform tools like Xamerin won't cut the mustard (...but if you want to target both iOS and Android, a cross-platform framework would be preferable). Once you get away from one-man-band developers, the only people in a muti-platform development team who need access to Macs are the ones working on Mac/iPhone support.
As for Linux/BSD - yeah, back in 2006 it was great that MacOS was Unix, came with (then) GCC, PHP, Perl, etc. and you could run Apache, MySQL/PostgreSQL and all their friends - all on the same machine as Adobe CS etc... but, what I've found out down the line is that you're better off running Linux in a VM anyway, so you can match the target environment as close as possible and keep your MacOS file structure clean... not to mention that the way forward is containers, for which you need a Linux VM anyway. So once your development is VM based it really doesn't matter what host OS you're using.
MS are encouraging development on all fronts: PC (Visual Studio, VS Code, WSL), Mac (VS Code, "VS for Mac/ Xamerin") and online/in the cloud (VS, VS Code). I think the days of Windows vs Mac being the great battle is over and the big deal is Microsoft vs. Google vs. Amazon fighting over services (with Apple services other than maybe iTunes/Music a niche).
...anyway, the reality is that Windows on ARM is still bubbling under, even on "ARM PC" hardware (I think there are about 3 choices of ARM ultraportable?), so if you need to develop for native Windows, that's going to be x86 dominated for the near future, and Apple Silicon is going to be a bust for you - as with any development that requires NVIDIA or AMD GPU technology... That can't be avoided.
The future, I think, is going to be remote working - either using cloud services or a PC tower sitting in your basement - and it really won't matter what sort of machine you're using to access it. "Remote desktop" tech has come on leaps and bounds since 2006 - both through improved software and pervasive broadband internet access.
On top of that - it is 2021, folks and so what if you have to take two laptops to work? An M1 MacBook Pro and a nice Windows ultrabook, together, probably add up to about the same size and weight than the far less powerful 15" Alu Mac Pro that you were toting around in 2006...
I used to take two laptops to work. They weighed 8 pounds each. Dell Inspiron 4000 and Dell Inspiron 4100.
Before the pandemic, I'd take two MacBook Pros to the office and back and they were about five pounds each.
If you need Windows, just get a Windows machine. Or get two and leave one in the office and one at home.
The only people saying such words like this are techies which are niche market. Much of the world still has no idea that during the Intel on Mac era that Windows could be installed on a Mac via Bootcamp.
Honest question, do you seriously believe that businesses were buying Mac computers and going through the trouble (especially with their I.T department) to install Windows on them? I 100% doubt this. Businesses buy computers for their offices and they run them on the native OS. If they can't run their office strictly on MacOS then they buy Windows PC's. I.T departments are not going to install VM's or install Windows via Bootcamp and dealing with the drivers to get optimum performance, especially since Intel Macs got extremely hot running Bootcamped Windows.
Perhaps entrepreneurs that are techies that have a small business of their own would tinker with this idea but businesses with I.T departments won't touch installing Windows on Macs.
There's a guy named Sick Codes and he maintains the code that allows you to run Docker-macOS. He also has a version on iOS. He doesn't use macOS though. He uses his virtual machines to find macOS bugs as he makes his living off of bug bounties. There are lots of people who do this and it requires a fair amount of expertise in a variety of areas.
Bootcamp was not a great experience. The Windows drivers were often subpar and not optimized for the hardware and Windows has a reputation for running hot via Bootcamp. I found running Windows VMs on macOS to be less resource hungry compared to Bootcamp though VMs aren't good for gaming.
Apple clearly feels that they they are their own platform and that it can stand on its own merits.
The honest answer is that that's what I'm considering at the moment, or would be if it were an option. We currently work in a scenario where we give people a choice of laptop; Lenovo or MBP. We (more frequently than I would like) send out a laptop for someone to change their mind once they have it. "On reflection I think I'd prefer a Windows laptop".
If we were in Intel land, I'd re-image a Mac for that person with Windows (using Bootcamp - drivers et all all taken care of) and send it out. When that person leaves and their laptop goes to the next person, it's as easy as booting it back into macOS. I don't even need to format the drive if I don't need to. I can just leave macOS on a different partition.
The point is flexibility. At the moment for example, Lenovo / HP stock is difficult to come by for the models we want, so the option to buy a Mac and send it out with whichever OS I need on it would be a huge win, and would cost about the same plus a Windows license. Alas, it's not currently meant to be. ?
A small number of employees at my employer have Macs with Boot Camp. We acquired a small company that used some Mac software and they continued to need Mac access. I'm not sure what we'll do when Apple stops selling Intel Macs, but more of our software is web-based and is accessible through mobile devices, so it may be less of an issue by then.