Forgetting about the exclusivity deal for the moment, they can still sell licenses without natively booting Windows environment. Virtual machines are sufficient for the vast majority of users.
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.
Why doesn't Apple Silicon support Windows on Arm if it supports Linux on Arm?
- Thread starter izzy0242mr
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Forgetting about the exclusivity deal for the moment, they can still sell licenses without natively booting Windows environment. Virtual machines are sufficient for the vast majority of users.
I don’t think it will happen.
If you have want it for games just get a console.
If it is for Apps find an alternative.
If neither is option just get a Windows machine
I don’t think MS cares about selling a few licenses to Mac users.
If you have want it for games just get a console.
If it is for Apps find an alternative.
If neither is option just get a Windows machine
I don’t think MS cares about selling a few licenses to Mac users.
It depends on the software. If you have mostly Windows software, then no reason to buy a Mac to begin with. Luckily, even on enterprise, more and more tools are cloud/web/mobile, thus the OS itself is getting less and less relevant.
It's just business. Regular consumers can't buy a Windows on ARM license right now (forget about that Insider program, that's for nerds). Then, most of the software - which is the big thing for Windows - won't run on ARM out of the gate. So why should Apple care about a niche of a niche?
In essence (this is a slight simplification) - Bootcamp isn't required to run Windows on an Intel Mac (nor is BootCamp a "bootloader") - it is mainly a user-friendly, point-and-click "wizard" that makes it easy to create a Windows partition, make some tweaks to the standard Windows installer and install the required drivers (mainly just regular Windows drivers from Intel, NVIDIA, AMD etc.).
Bootcamp only works because the hardware and firmware on Intel Macs is only a relatively simple firmware patch away from being a regular PC clone, and can run Windows more-or-less out of the box. Before Bootcamp, a bunch of enthusiasts solved the problem and released DIY instructions for running Windows.
The same thing meant that many Linux distributions would almost-just-work on Intel Macs - but Apple never added Linux support to Boot Camp, so any point-and-drool tool or installer tweaks had to be provided by the makers of the Linux distribution.
Apple Silicon hardware/firmware is nothing like a PC clone, and not even like other ARM-based hardware. Everything is handled by proprietary Apple hardware and firmware on the M1 chip, so you need a new installer, new bootloader and new hardware drivers for everything. The concept of Bootcamp really doesn't exist.
Linux can only boot on Apple Silicon because the Asahi Linux people have done a *lot* of work putting together a version that works directly with Apple Silicon hardware & firmware - which is only possible because Linux (along with all the other packages needed to make a working Linux system) is open source so anybody can get the source and modify it. Even so, although the Asahi folk have made great progress, it's a long way from being a complete, stable product.
It might be a kickstarter for their app eco system to develop for ARM , if the developers go from few thousands low powered Qcom machines to tens of millions AS powered machines with users that have money to spend , then maybe they will start coding for the platform , otherwise its an chicken and egg situation , like Apple has in the gaming world , ppl wont buy WOA as nothing runs on it , but developers wont do the work to port the apps if no one is buying the machines and apps.I don’t think it will happen.
If you have want it for games just get a console.
If it is for Apps find an alternative.
If neither is option just get a Windows machine
I don’t think MS cares about selling a few licenses to Mac users.
I don’t think that this their issue their “Rosetta” that runs x86 on arm works fairly well and fast. When an app did not work it usually was because Paralells did not support the correct OpenGL or DX 12.
As long as that Qualcom exclusivity deal is in place nothing will change anyway.
Even after that I think the change is as big as Apple bringing back eGPU support for ARM.
Even if perhaps they should have, because this 🤣
Anyway getting sidetracked here
Last edited:
You make it sound as if Windows-ARM is an issue - instead the ultimate fact is, that an ARM CPU cannot possibly execute x86 code natively - independent if you are running Windows-x86 or Windows-ARM.
windows on apple kit wouldn’t improve Microsoft’s profits. Office on mac does. Thus effort is spent there.
Are you sure? Office on Mac is one of the best office suites available - PERIOD. And documents, etc can be shared seamlessless across OS's. #Funny.
Microsoft Office Home and Student 2021 (One Mac)
Microsoft Office Home and Student 2021 provides classic Office apps and email for families and small businesses using one Mac. Buy online now at apple.com.
www.apple.com
So MS makes Office for MAC and it's been working great. Apple comes out with a new chip and MS is going to stop investing just like that?I don’t think it will happen.
If you have want it for games just get a console.
If it is for Apps find an alternative.
If neither is option just get a Windows machine
I don’t think MS cares about selling a few licenses to Mac users.
Microsoft 365 for Mac, Office for Mac
Office for Mac with Microsoft 365, gives you power and flexibility to get things done from virtually anywhere.
www.microsoft.com
You misunderstood my post, since you're just rephrasing one of the sub-points I already made and presenting it as though I hadn't already made it: That Windows-x86 programs can't run natively on an ARM processor, and thus require an emulator.
Hence (and this was my main point, which follows from the latter), being able to run Windows on AS doesn't open you up to the huge universe of Windows programs, unless you're willing to run those programs on an emulator, since only a small subset of those have native ARM ports.
Last edited:
It's not just drivers in the way that it was for x86 and x86-64 Intel Macs. Though, that is certainly a factor.
Apple Silicon also isn't just ARM64. It's heavily modified ARM. There are instructions in Apple's SoCs that aren't necessarily in other ARM64 SoCs and processors. Furthermore, Intel Macs use UEFI for their firmware; Intel/AMD PCs also use UEFI for their firmware. ARM64 PCs ALSO use UEFI for their firmware. Apple Silicon Macs use iBoot for their firmware. iBoot is proprietary to Apple; so, if we're talking native boot solutions, Microsoft would need to engineer a custom bootloader specifically for Apple Silicon Mac hardware.
I'm not saying that Apple and Microsoft couldn't make a native Boot Camp style dual-boot solution with Apple Silicon Macs for the ARM64 version of Windows 10 and/or Windows 11, just that there's a decent amount more to it than there was when we were playing this game for Intel Macs some 16 years ago.
Microsoft has an exclusivity contract with Qualcom, so only their Arm processors are supported.
Probably will not change either as long as there is no real alternative.
Apple Silicon is not as the will not sell only the SOC to Microsoft.
So I think it will stay Qualcom unless Intel, AMD, Nvidia or someone else makes a better alternative.
I think the point is that what many people who currently use Bootcamp on Intel Macs really need is x86 Windows, which reduces the incentive for anybody to put the work into supporting Windows-for-ARM.
I don't think people go the Mac Bootcamp route just to run mainstream productivity software for which there are good Mac versions or equivalents. If you do need (say) the missing bits of Office, Parallels (which now seems to support production versions of WoA 11 for which you can actually buy a license) is a far more practical solution than partitioning your disk and having to reboot to change OSs.
MS seem to be giving WoA a good college try with the Surface X, WoA has it's own (vaguely) Rosetta-equivalent to run x86 apps, and there are key products like Photoshop supporting WoA - but there's huge inertia behind x86 Windows (otherwise it would have died with Vista or Windows 8).
...however, you can run Photoshop natively on Mac. If you need Bootcamp to run apps that aren't available for Mac and need better performance than Parallels - e.g. CAD software or, of course, games - then ARM native versions are less likely to be available and, even if they are, they're certainly not going to be optimised for Apple Silicon GPUs, neural engines, video accelerators etc. which are a key part of Apple Silicon's performance advantages.
Not really. Apple would need to provide a compliant ACPI as part of EFI in order to make Windows boot - something Windows requires for ANY other platform to be provided by the OEM. Windows does boot on x86 Macs, because these SW components came from Intel - now Apple is the OEM.
Chances that Microsoft makes an exception for Apple and only for Apple and program a boot loader including all the boot relevant drivers for undocumented HW are essentially zero.
Bingo.
I'm rewriting as many work processes as I can to work on macOS OR Windows. The power of our M365 licenses is all I need to never again worry about whether I'm on my (favorite computer ever) M1 MBA or my XPS13 (which is also quite good).
I think we will see Windows 11 with Apple Silicon optimisation within a few years. Not necessarily because they want or expect people to actually run it on bare metal, but because it will make a huge difference when running under a VM using macOS hypervisor framework. Virtualising the same CPU requires very little overhead, right now, Windows 11 ARM runs... well, fine. And of course Microsoft will happily sell Windows licenses to Mac users. Microsoft doesn't care if you boot Windows or run it in a VM. They sell licenses and software, which is why Windows has been practically impossible to install and run from an external drive. Can't have the customers using one license for more than one machine! Apple, on the other hand, has done the opposite. You have pretty much always been able to move Mac OS wherever, because they want to sell you the hardware, the software doesn't bring in money. They have not been keen on virtual machines tough, until now.
This has been my thinking about the subject for years and years. Apple sells Hardware that runs their software and more. Microsoft sells Software that's expected to run on almost every piece of hardware out there, AND they sell some hardware. If/when Microsoft starts officially allowing/licensing Windows on ARM to run on anything other than what's still held up legally with Qualcomm, they're going to lose that Hardware-side market share because more people would be incentivized to buy a new Apple Silicon Mac instead.
In my case, up until my 2020 M1 MBP, "my Mac" has also always been my best Windows machine. Sounds like bad business for Microsoft. Although, they'd make some money back (and more?) from selling more licenses.
Even if the exclusivity deal expires, another question is whether anyone else (e.g. AMD, Google, Samsung) will produce ARM chips for Windows. If not, then Microsoft still might not sell retail licenses for it. It’s possible Corel (who owns Parallels) applies for an “OEM” license, but until Qualcomm (or one of the new entrants) has a chip that is competitive with the M-series, Microsoft might not want to upstage an official partner.
I run some old applications on my M1 Max in Windows 11 ARM. Pretty amazed that it installed as the software is close to 20 years old. Specific software for an ancient RIP our print shop uses. Comparing to my 5K iMac which also runs the same application in a Windows 7 VM, the Windows 11 VM runs faster, though it is also a much faster computer with the M1 chip. I think I have had only one case where what I wanted to install would not install in Windows 11 ARM, and that was an obscure packaging application (for box creation). Installer said something about compatibility issues. I don't have a lot installed in Windows, but everything I have done has worked, and runs fast. So while I am sure there are more apps that won't load, I think the majority probably will and run very well under the X86 emulation Windows is using.