The way I see it, Macs and PCs are better for different purposes. PCs are really good for coding, network configurations, and of course gaming. Whereas Macs are great for everyday use (web browsing, emails, documents and spreadsheets, streaming music and videos, instant messaging, etc.) and also for creativity (digital image manipulation and artwork, audio-visual creation, desktop publishing, web design, etc.) And I am perfectly happy with being cross-platform for such purposes. I point this out in "Get a Mac" commercial parody I made in Wrapper/GoAnimate (I love making deconstruction videos on this platform)...
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.
The absence of Bootcamp is preventing me from switching to M1 or M2... Will there ever be a solution?
- Thread starter Aedant
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Buy the right tool for the job and prioritize your needs. Don't expect a 'bootcamp' solution (that's a thing from the past). Buy a PC, a console or a Steamdeck for gaming and see if you have some money left for a Mac (or stick with your old Mac). Or buy a Mac (or stick with your old Mac) and see if you have some money left for a PC, a console or a steam deck. As I said, it is about prioritizing your needs
.
Between Microsoft's continued push of the Surface Pro X and its descendants and the reports of Windows 12 having a definitive focus on the ARM architecture, I think it's safe to say that Microsoft is going to do everything in their power to make WoA relevant.
You mean like they did for Windows Phone on Nokia hardware? Google is too big of a company to blackmail them into abandoning Android. Has Microsoft ever won a competition without illegal business practices? Why would big corporations ever give up on their well-established x86 platform? It's more likely that Intel eventually manages to bring energy consumption of x86 down to a level where it makes no sense anymore to switch to ARM.
One point Steve Jobs made regarding ports was: When you want to make people go along with the transition to a newer better technology, you've got to stop shipping the old established technology. Microsoft will never stop selling classic Windows. For that reason alone Windows on ARM will always remain the little stepbrother. Hardly anybody will consider to buy two Windows PCs to be able support both kinds of CPUs. It's either one or the other. So both Windows'es will be direct competitors of each other existing side by side, with one being established since 1985. No focus on ARM for Windows 12 will overcome this fatal flaw.
NONE of their code is software independent. That’s why it always took Aspyr so long in porting to PowerPC back in the day. AND…to get timely ports…1 GHz is 1 GHz regardless of architecture. AND…don’t expect any kind of Apple whatever process to be there to help with speed, either.
Different general purpose OS's on different general purpose hardware are only 'better' for different purposes because you like applications that run on them not because of any inherent difference in the platforms.
Windows could run just fine on Apple Silicon if Apple and Microsoft wanted it to. Gaming could work just as well on a Mac or Linux if the developers wanted them too. Each of your strengths could be just as strong on the other platform if the application(s) you like to do those tasks worked exactly the same on the other platform, and they could, if they developers of those apps wanted them too.
So no, Windows, Linux and macOS are not better for different purposes, you like different applications and they run on different OS's.
I've given up hope. Half Life 2 is my favorite game of all time and the only way I can play it is in emulation in Crossover (which isn't a great experience) or my teenager's gaming PC which would require me to hang out in his disgusting bedroom.
Have you seen this?
Guide to Installing Counter-Strike: Source Using the Source Engine | Notion
guide made by jxhug. video here:
not sure what the games are you are playing but I would suggest a console of some sort to fill the gap, best bang for the buck out there for gaming. Thats the route I chose to go a couple years ago and been very happy with that decision as my MacBook is perfect for all my other daily needs.
Well, they had the help that the use the official feature of configuring the Mac to boot an untrusted OS. So, since they are using that feature for its purpose, it wouldn’t make much sense to shut them down.
See above. The boot loader can boot in ”fuOS mode” (stands for fully untrusted OS).
Traditionally, Windows systems (and thus the PC) were good at workstation-type work. What I mean with this is any kind of work that involves One Big Application that has pretty much exclusive access over the system resources and can do things any way it needs. Windows has always been very focused on backwards compatibility, which encourages the development of One Big Application (less risk for both the developer and the user), users can pick the hardware they need for their specific purpose, and what's important, they spend almost all their time with the One Big Application which kind of becomes their OS anyway: the UX of the actual OS does not matter, which is why Windows has traditionally been fairly bare-bones in this domain (although this changed with Windows 7).
What are the examples of One Big Application? Well, it's large software suites like Photoshop (all Adobe Products really), 3D modelling, specialised environments like MatLab etc., but even MS Office, and of course games. I also don't agree with you that Window is good for coding — unless you are coding for Windows obviously — as Windows traditionally sucks at multi-tasking and prefers to do things their own way which disrupts many coding workflows (although Microsoft has been quite successful in pushing their own One Big Application for coding — VSCode). These are things that macOS excels at, and there is a reason why many new tools are available for the Mac from the start — because many of them are developed on Mac.
Apple Silicon is changing some things however. Excellent performance, unified memory, and specialised hardware makes it an excellent target for certain creative workflows (Intel Macs weren't really that good for photo and video editing). Apple CPUs are particularly good with coding workflows (they run compilers and tools extremely fast) and have been very well received by the developer community — Macs are currently probably the most popular brand of computer among devs and you can already see the enthusiasm based on how quickly open-source tools were ported. If you are an open-source dev and are looking for a laptop, there is hardly a better choice. I expect this trend to continue in the future. The only real problem is the price, which is getting a bit difficult to stomach for many...
This still doesn't mean that Apple encourages this usage. They much rather want you to virtualize other OSes on top of macOS. You can also switch off FileVault and Gatekeeper if you want, but the average user should keep them all activated by default. Apple Silicon is not Qualcomm, more and more parts of the chip are optimized for Apple's own APIs and software. Apple surely doesn't want to share trade secrets and lose its competitive advantage by fully supporting a competing OS. Let alone that of arch-enemy Microsoft.
But the biggest obstacle remains Microsoft's inability to generate a thriving third-party ecosystem around Windows on ARM as long as classic x86 Windows is still around and Android is a license free ARM plattform with millions of users.
Thank you, my friend! I will give this a shot!Have you seen this?
Guide to Installing Counter-Strike: Source Using the Source Engine | Notion
guide made by jxhug. video here:jameshug.notion.site
This is why I eventually (even as much as I loved my M1 MBA) switched to a Asus Zephyrus G14 with a RTX 3060. I got tired of lugging all this equipment around when I travel (Windows laptop for work, MBA, iPad Pro 12.9", iphone)... Now I just have windows laptop (that I can Azure remote desktop on) iPad Pro, iPhone.
Would I have stuck with a Macbook Pro if it could run windows games and Azure Remote Desktop through bootcamp? Probably. But I could see that Apple didn't care so I moved to cross-platform apps only a few months back to see if I could. I could. Now I am selling my 2020 M1 MBA with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD.
Would I have stuck with a Macbook Pro if it could run windows games and Azure Remote Desktop through bootcamp? Probably. But I could see that Apple didn't care so I moved to cross-platform apps only a few months back to see if I could. I could. Now I am selling my 2020 M1 MBA with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD.
If you as a user are fine with Windows becoming irrelevant in an increasingly mobile world? Microsoft as a company desperately wanted Windows Phone to become relevant and even bought Nokia to push their OS. They tried again with Windows RT on the Surface RT tablet. Now that Apple Silicon has brought ARM back to the Mac, it is even more urgent to get Windows on ARM going. Otherwise Microsoft might not only lose the future, but the bread and butter of their business.
It wont become irrelevant, so the question is nonsense.
I really wouldn't say desperate, there's no indication of that. I owned one of those Nokia's and actually liked the OS, it was ahead of its time, but since it didn't sell, they cancelled it, just like I would expect.
Yep, they tried, it didn't sell.
LOL, they aren't losing anything. They try new products like any company does, and they also cancel projects that don't work. If they were really serious about WoA, they would make it a heck of a lot more compatible with x64 Windows.
If you look at market share, unfortunately, Microsoft has little reason to fear or innovate. And if you look at profits, Apple has little reason to fear or innovate. Thus we are where we are.
WoA IS fully compatible with 64-bit Windows. It is NOT compatible with the WoW extensions to the OS (i.e., running 32-bit apps on 64-bit versions of Windows). Apple made the move away from supporting 32-bit applications entirely before even announcing Apple Silicon, so it's not the processors preventing Microsoft from doing the same.
Sorry, no, not fully compatible. Some X64 things don't run.
And to be acceptable, it has to be able to run those 32-bit apps too.
Tell that to "big blue" IBM. In a way Microsoft already became irrelevant. The alternative to iOS is Android and no variant of Windows. Microsoft is not present on ARM, the dominant chip platform of our decade.
Buying Nokia for $7 billion, because no one wanted to license Windows Phone seems desperate to me. Microsoft's secret of success was to only make the software everybody needs and let the OEMs compete against each other. Microsoft only began to build hardware, because its software business alone was already irrelevant in the mobile space.
It never had a chance to be successful, because Android had already occupied its market niche as the alternative to iOS for other hardware makers.
No, they didn't try. Again Microsoft failed to make the case, why third-party developers should write software for Windows RT, when there was another Microsoft tablet with an x86 chip right next to it?
Trying is the little sister of failing. Apple tried to build a social network around music with Ping. Windows on ARM wont work as a new product, because Android already exists. It can only work as a transition of the entire existing Windows ecosystem onto a new chip architecture. They need to make the case for users and developers alike to make the switch together. Explain the benefits and minimize the hassle. And then they need to burn the bridges behind them and force everyone to accept the inevitability and irreversibility of the change. Apple demonstrated multiple times how a chip transition works and Microsoft never learned.
Windows is dominant in their market though, desktops and laptops, and by a good margin.
Big Blue supports Windows quite well, both in hardware and software. They also have machines for other purpose, either using AIX, Linux, or i, (and whatever mainframe OS they are running these days) but then they know how to support backwards compatibility and they would never put all their eggs in one basket.
It doesn't mean that to me since they dropped it so quickly. And how much do I have to say I don't care if they're relevant in the mobile space? I really don't care, but I do care about the desktops and laptops, and especially what we run on them. Mobiles will *never* take over all jobs in businesses, they're just too limited and can't run the software we need.
Exactly!! If they were desperate, they'd try a LOT more than Windows RT, it was pitiful and totally useless. As for Microsoft tablet, there's actually not much call for that, I've never purchased one for anywhere I work and I haven't purchased one for myself (I did have a first version Surface Book, which was actually a cool device, but that was a long time ago) I much rather buy a Lenovo laptop or desktop instead, they handle the job better. Maybe a Dell as well. For servers, we buy IBM.
The software that runs on these machines is everything, like it or not...
Actually, they were. It's just that Apple Silicon Macs can do that better than Intel Macs. Same thing with back in the late 2000s when Intel Macs were better for photo and video work than PowerPC Macs were.