Running Windows on the new M1 Chip?

[laptech]

What does one of the Intel and AMD laptops with equivalent battery life and performance cost?

I just built an i7-10700 system and the case has three fans and I put on an Arctic eSports Duo cooler (it's massive) and I could add another five case fans if I wanted even more cooling. I look at the M1 in a laptop with 18-20 hours of battery life, much faster single-core performance and about 15% less multi-core performance and I am blown away.

The ability to run Zoom conferences with no fan noise is a big plus in the age of WFH and SFH.

I would compare the MacBook Pro to other ultrabooks - that's a better comparison. I do expect Apple to come out with an M2 or M1X and am looking forward to double, triple and quadruple the compute power. In laptops.

You missed the point of my post entirely. My post is all about Value for Money and as a result of 'value for money', the M1 will not put a dent into Windows laptops. If my post was specifically about hardware spec's then yes comparing the M1 against Intel and AMD ultrabooks would be a fair comparison BUT my post is not specifically about hardware specs, it is specifically about value for money.

 

[Nate Spencer]

You could try qemu. Probably not great performance. There is a thread linking to twitter about someone running qemu even natively. Performance was slow. I got into the windows 7 x64 installer without issue. I would have to copy kvm/qemu VM and match the settings. I haven't found a decent UI manager for QEMU by itself for macos. So it's command line. KVM/QEMU is what runs a lot cloud providers. QEMU without KVM has to emulate the CPU. That will hurt, but qemu does have usb support, 3d is non-existent.

 

[pshufd]

You missed the point of my post entirely. My post is all about Value for Money and as a result of 'value for money', the M1 will not put a dent into Windows laptops. If my post was specifically about hardware spec's then yes comparing the M1 against Intel and AMD ultrabooks would be a fair comparison BUT my post is not specifically about hardware specs, it is specifically about value for money.

Value for money depends on the customer. If you want to game, then Apple's products aren't for you. If you have a professional work staff that just wants to get a lot of work done using Microsoft Office, Zoom, Slack, email and web browsing, then macOS may well be perfect. My company (110,000 employees) went macOS back around 2015 or 2016.

And the companies that do go Mac do it for value for money.

 

[gank41]

Forgive me if this has been explained already here, I just didn’t see anyone post the link to it here. But Microsoft does have an ARM version of Windows, it’s just not licensed for use. Yet. With the way things are changing, it’s very hard to believe that Microsoft won’t find a way to get their software working on Apple’s hardware again.

whenever a working version of Parallels or VMWare comes to the M1 machines, I’ll be trying this, and expecting it to not work yet ?

At some point I expect Parallels to offer a purchase and/or download of an ARM based Windows at their starting page/store.

Download Windows Insider Preview ARM64

 

[pshufd]

Forgive me if this has been explained already here, I just didn’t see anyone post the link to it here. But Microsoft does have an ARM version of Windows, it’s just not licensed for use. Yet. With the way things are changing, it’s very hard to believe that Microsoft won’t find a way to get their software working on Apple’s hardware again.

whenever a working version of Parallels or VMWare comes to the M1 machines, I’ll be trying this, and expecting it to not work yet ?

Download Windows Insider Preview ARM64

It's easier for Microsoft to port to their own ARM as they've had ARM conditional compilation code for a very long time (at least back to 2005). This might have been for Win CE. The thing is that Windows is written for Viscual C/C++ and Apple's development environment for macOS is Objective C. So either Microsoft would have to first port their compilers to ARM and then port the OS or they would have to port to Objective C. I do not see the latter happening.

 

[tdar]

It's easier for Microsoft to port to their own ARM as they've had ARM conditional compilation code for a very long time (at least back to 2005). This might have been for Win CE. The thing is that Windows is written for Viscual C/C++ and Apple's development environment for macOS is Objective C. So either Microsoft would have to first port their compilers to ARM and then port the OS or they would have to port to Objective C. I do not see the latter happening.

Microsoft, like Apple compiles code using the compiler they produce. Microsoft’s already supports compiling for ARM. The variety of c code is irrelevant.

 

[pshufd]

Microsoft, like Apple compiles code using the compiler they produce. Microsoft’s already supports compiling for ARM. The variety of c code is irrelevant.

ARM doesn't have the consistency of x86. So they support compiling for ARM.

Which ARM?

 

[tdar]

ARM doesn't have the consistency of x86. So they support compiling for ARM.

Which ARM?

They support compilation of programs to the windows api’s. The os is in effect an abstraction layer. As for the OS itself, PRESENTLY they support a limited set of hardware.
I believe that we have been clear that for windows ( WoA) to run on AS would require a system Specific version, that supports the Apple boot process and has the required device drivers. Typically they would just include this version in the single ISO for WoA.
If this development work has been done, it has not been made public.
I am not expecting anything from Microsoft until around April 2021. When the release of the next update to Windows 10 comes out. That’s the version that will contain win64 support.

 

[Squeak825]

Parallels has stated that they are going to try to do it. But they are also very interested in the WoA work as well. I believe that’s about performance. WoA would run circles around emulation of x86.

Please provide a link to where Parallels has stated they are working on x86 emulation to run Windows on an M1 chip.

 

[tdar]

Please provide a link to where Parallels has stated they are working on x86 emulation to run Windows on an M1 chip.

It was originally in the news release that was issued the day of the WWDC keynote. That release has been rewritten and the comments on it deleted. In its place ( and on the Parallels forums) if you ask for information you are directed to a blog post from last Tuesday talking about the development continuing. Also they make reference to the WoA code from Microsoft without mention that it is not available now.
Seems to have been a set back on the original plan.

 

[gank41]

It was originally in the news release that was issued the day of the WWDC keynote. That release has been rewritten and the comments on it deleted. In its place ( and on the Parallels forums) if you ask for information you are directed to a blog post from last Tuesday talking about the development continuing. Also they make reference to the WoA code from Microsoft without mention that it is not available now.
Seems to have been a set back on the original plan.

Parallels posted this on their blog:

KB Parallels: Parallels Desktop support on Mac computers with Apple M series chips

Does Parallels Desktop for Mac support Mac computers with the Apple M series chips?

kb.parallels.com

“Good news: A new version of Parallels Desktop for Mac that can run on Mac with Apple M1 chip is already in active development. Please check this blog postto get all the latest news about Mac with Apple M1 chip support by Parallels Desktop.”

 

[Squeak825]

It was originally in the news release that was issued the day of the WWDC keynote. That release has been rewritten and the comments on it deleted. In its place ( and on the Parallels forums) if you ask for information you are directed to a blog post from last Tuesday talking about the development continuing. Also they make reference to the WoA code from Microsoft without mention that it is not available now.
Seems to have been a set back on the original plan.

Sorry, but I dont believe Parallels has ever claimed they would ever do x86 emulation. It has always been about virtualization only.

Parallels posted this on their blog:

KB Parallels: Parallels Desktop support on Mac computers with Apple M series chips

Does Parallels Desktop for Mac support Mac computers with the Apple M series chips?

kb.parallels.com

“Good news: A new version of Parallels Desktop for Mac that can run on Mac with Apple M1 chip is already in active development. Please check this blog postto get all the latest news about Mac with Apple M1 chip support by Parallels Desktop.”

That post says nothing about x86 emulation.

 

[Nate Spencer]

https://github.com/utmapp/UTM. I have ran that it is ARM QEMU w/ JIT accelerator. Performance isn't VMware fusion. But definitely in the usable. Only issue I am having is Win7 kills the mouse when it tries to install a fresh root hub and I can't click reboot. This would be a non-issue on a fresh install. I moved my main two VMs to my HP w/ VMWare Workstation. I am not sure how much I will use it.

 

[Marbles1]

Does https://pcem-emulator.co.uk run on M1 I wonder?

 

[trailmonkey]

I'd like to think Parallels will improve their support too. I, along with a lot of other Mac users, had Win 10 boot lock issues that they refused to accept responsibility for. That's the main reason I returned my 16" back in Jan. They offered no help whatsoever. As much as I want to use Parallels on Mx I'm not sure I trust them to make it work and properly support it.

 

[Nate Spencer]

Does https://pcem-emulator.co.uk run on M1 I wonder?

There is a mac port it should run. LGR has a video playing Duke 3D on an M1. I think it was DOSBox. QEMU works there is even a port. Only issue is you cannot use multicores. You can but qemu will just divide the 1 host cpu core you are dominating.

 

[tdar]

I'd like to think Parallels will improve their support too. I, along with a lot of other Mac users, had Win 10 boot lock issues that they refused to accept responsibility for. That's the main reason I returned my 16" back in Jan. They offered no help whatsoever. As much as I want to use Parallels on Mx I'm not sure I trust them to make it work and properly support it.

I believe that the issue that is holding Parallels up is that they don't have any way at this point to run windows. Let's face it, that's the reason most people buy their product. And If it can't (yet) run windows, they don't have much of a user base. Same for Fusion.

 

[pshufd]

I believe that the issue that is holding Parallels up is that they don't have any way at this point to run windows. Let's face it, that's the reason most people buy their product. And If it can't (yet) run windows, they don't have much of a user base. Same for Fusion.

I don't see how they can run Windows Intel without emulating a whole x86 machine. The most promising approach seems to be WINE (which I'm not a big fan of). I think that the best solution would be WARM + a Windows version of Rosetta 2.

 

[tdar]

I don't see how they can run Windows Intel without emulating a whole x86 machine. The most promising approach seems to be WINE (which I'm not a big fan of). I think that the best solution would be WARM + a Windows version of Rosetta 2.

They seem to be all excited about the Windows on Arm code. But for most users that code won’t be a solution until after the first quarter of next year. Plus Microsoft has yet to have licensed it for use on anything but a OEM system. There would also have to be Apple silicon drivers written.
Even with that approach, they are a long way from a solution.

 

[pshufd]

They seem to be all excited about the Windows on Arm code. But for most users that code won’t be a solution until after the first quarter of next year. Plus Microsoft has yet to have licensed it for use on anything but a OEM system. There would also have to be Apple silicon drivers written.
Even with that approach, they are a long way from a solution.

Yup.

BTW, you don't give away your source code unless it's demanded by the government or someone pays you a huge amount of money for it. The only way I see Parallels getting WARM source code is if Microsoft buys Parallels. The other thing is that the build would likely be for generic ARM, not Apple Silicon.

So I think that WINE/Crossover is the best approach for people that need to run Windows programs.

I've gone through this stuff a few times and basically wound up with choosing critical programs that run on both platforms. I want to be able to run my workload on macOS or Windows. Linux is a bonus.

 

[tdar]

Yup.

BTW, you don't give away your source code unless it's demanded by the government or someone pays you a huge amount of money for it. The only way I see Parallels getting WARM source code is if Microsoft buys Parallels. The other thing is that the build would likely be for generic ARM, not Apple Silicon.

So I think that WINE/Crossover is the best approach for people that need to run Windows programs.

I've gone through this stuff a few times and basically wound up with choosing critical programs that run on both platforms. I want to be able to run my workload on macOS or Windows. Linux is a bonus.

One thing that I have wondered about is if Microsoft would fix this themselves.
They have there own virtualization solution - Hyper-V. It’s already been ported to arm64.
They also have 386 emulation for both 32 bit and 64 bit code. All of that is included in WoA. They do not charge for Hyper-V. Now of course it doesn’t run in the Apple hypervisor, but they could I expect package up these things and get them running on M1. They of course have an interest in seeing windows run there.

 

[Stridr69]

What bewilders me is that not only Apple but others as well are saying it's up to Microsoft if they want to support Apple silicon so it can run Windows but here's the thing, Apple had to re-write OSX when they transitioned from powerpc to Intel. Apple wrote OSX for M1 ARM chip. Apple therefore have the knowhow and tools to build their own x86 emulator to allow Windows to run on their machines but they wont, they are expecting others to do it for them. Whilst the Apple developers were re-writing OSX from Intel to ARM, Apple could have easily setup a team to work along side the M1 developers to design a x86 emulator that would allow mac owners who use both OS's to carry on doing so. So the question has to be, why didn't they? Granted having a dedicated ARM version of Windows is the ideal solution BUT it requires Microsoft to do it and more importantly, the requirement to WANT to do it.

Apple knows there are thousands, possibly millions of mac users who need to run Windows along side Mac OS so why didn't they plan for this?, rather than saying 'oh, well it's up to Microsoft'. They have the man power, they have the expertise, they have the developers and they have the tools to build an x86 emulator that would have worked out the box on the M1 but they didn't. Now people are asking when will Windows be ready for M1 and all Apple can say is 'well, it's up to others, not us'.

Because Apple wants ALL future Macs to be tightly integrated with iPhone/iPad. If Windows wants to join the party then they need to adapt.

 

[Stridr69]

If you need to run Windows, get a Windows machine. Apple never was in the business of making a box that ran Windows for the sake of running Windows. They gave us Bootcamp because it was a way to entice otherwise Windows zealots to give the Mac platform a go. That clearly didn't pan out for them. If Microsoft wants to make Windows work on a Mac, all the power to them... but they've never made an effort to do so. The only thing they support on a Mac is Office.

..then Apple computers will go back to be completely irelevant as they were in the '90's. Just glorfied iPads with a built-in keyboard.

 

[Stridr69]

Stepping away from technical for a minute. Apple’s new machines are quite incredible: from performance to battery life, to iOS apps. I’d hazard a guess that the bulk of the computing market requires computers for tasks that either a basic PC or a Mac can comfortably perform. These new Macs will therefore attract many more Windows users, offering what they do.

How are the other hardware market participants going to compete? They’re going to have to seriously consider ARM as well (it seems AMD and Intel can’t deliver?). What OS do these competing companies run? Windows. My feeling is therefore the following. Likely, an even bigger reason for MS to have an ARM version of the Windows OS is to be able to provide these competing hardware makers with an ARM-capable OS.

So, if an Windows ARM version would be compatible with multiple ARM processor types, it’s not a question of if MS does the work on ARM Windows, it’s when.

In my view we‘re lucky, we’re witnessing a really exciting transition in IT...

Disagree. Redmond will take a look down the road to Cupertino and just flip'em the bird.

 

[1240766]

True curiosity, why one needs to run Windows on a Mac?