You're missing my point. There is no UEFI on Apple Silicon Macs. Period. Microsoft would need to engineer a bootloader for Windows for ARM64 that made it work with iBoot.
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
Probably not even that. NT used to boot on Alpha, MIPS and PPC fine and the PPC used OpenFirmware which is what the PPC macs used as well. It’s a tangled web of inbreeding.
Ie I’m sure Microsoft can write whatever loader shim is required themselves.
Ie I’m sure Microsoft can write whatever loader shim is required themselves.
There is also no EFI in Rasperry PI either, yet it boots Windows. Any idea why this is the case? Because the EFI does not need to be in ROM/NVM but could just be loaded at the second boot stage.
Any Idea, what the people, who are working to boot Windows on Apple silicon are doing? They are providing an EFI/ACPI - because that is the key to boot Windows. Again Microsoft would not have to do anything.
Microsoft can not possibly engineer a bootloader with all required drivers, because there is no HW documentation for Apple Silicon - and even if they had the documentation they would not do it, because they are not doing this for any other OEM. I mean, thats the whole point behind EFI/ACPI - it is an industry standard interface, that once implemented by the OEM, makes Windows have enough information about the system to be able to boot - without Microsoft changing a single line of code in Windows.
Last edited:
I think there are reasons. I wanted a silent mini pc that is powerful enough to feel snappy and not overheat in very hot environments. The M1 Mac Mini is the only one that meets these requirements. The silent X86 mini PCs are essentially Celeron crap. I have been using it mainly with Parallels (half of the 16GB RAM and CPU allocated to it) and with some native MacOS apps too, but mostly Windows. It has been working great.
Any idea why it's taken a rag-tag team well over a year to boot a semi-functional Linux OS on Apple Silicon? Other than extremely custom SoC components and instructions, IT'S BECAUSE THERE'S A CLOSED SOURCE PROPRIETARY FIRMWARE THAT NO ONE OUTSIDE OF APPLE AND THOSE PAINSTAKINGLY TRYING TO REVERSE ENGINEER IT KNOW HOW TO DEVELOP BOOTABLE THIRD PARTY OPERATING SYSTEMS FOR!
Now, kindly stop talking to me like I'm a six year old who just discovered computers for the first time last night; please and thank you.
Excuse me? The "people working to boot Windows on Apple silicon"? Who, pray tell, are those people? You're not talking about Microsoft because Microsoft hasn't publicly revealed efforts to do this and if you worked for Microsoft, you'd be violating one hell of an NDA right now. So, who is it that you are referring to and why am I to put any stock in their efforts if your forum comment is the first I'm hearing about it (given that I consume more tech news than is rationally healthy for any given human to consume)?
Again, you can move the EFI layer wherever you want, you're still going to need iBoot to boot something.
Here, for example: https://amarioguy.github.io/m1windowsproject/
I think you must have missed it then. It was discussed on hackers news and various Reddit communities.
Sure, but that’s not rocket science. Apple Silicon offers straightforward support for loading third-party kernels, writing your own entry point us not a big deal. It’s what comes afterwards is tricky.
from said web page :
" ... This project is not guaranteed to be successful. I’ll do my best to ensure it goes to completion but ultimately, there is zero guarantee that I will be able to get Windows working in a great way by the end of it all. But I’m going to try my absolute hardest. ... "
The notion that Microsoft would 'bet the farm' on a multimillion dollar venture of a 'maybe work' project on github is more than highly dubious.
Yes, there are folks hacking around getting various other OS to native boot off the mac variant of iBoot and Apple Silicon. Apple is not one of them.
Technically, Apple does not offer support. Apple offers a hack that happens to work without any offers to help. (Apple needs a bootstrap API calls for their own stuff that is in early stages of development. So there is a bit of "eat own dog food" here also ) . However, Apple doesn't not back that as a mechanism that they will offer first tier, active technical support for. Again a more than highly dubious context Microsoft to base a real business that needs to offer real first tier technical support for. IBM/RedHat probably isn't coming with a Linux distribution either. VMWare native hypervisors? Nope.
Apple has "hacking for fun" door. It is a very good relief value that keeps folks from spending more effort into jailbreaking the system so they can "hack for fun". There is only 'support' here in a non technical notion of "support". A hidden, custom API call is "supported" in the sense can invoke the call. That is "support" in the notion that "can do it" . This alternative boot mechanism isn't hidden, but it has lots of "danger will robinson , danger" warning wrapped around it by Apple that any organization that has decent lawyers and binding, commercial Support and/or Service Level agreements to uphold will highly likely consider as a non supported option.
This whole thread is waffles around the squishy use of the word 'support'. Apple does not offer technical support for Linux to boot natively. So it is not any different than Windows ( or VMWare hypervisors or etc. ) .
Apple's mechanism that they actually provide technical support for is virtualization. The hypervisor framework (everyones virtual machine product has to go through that framework ) and incrementally over time the virtualization framework. ( Apple's virtualization framework is highly prioritized on MacOS and Linux . Probably because there is lots of "eat our own dog food" there for Apple. They deploy lots of Linux images to their data centers. More "unix ARM applications" isn't going to hurt the Unix subsystem in macOS on Apple silicon either. ).
Oh, I completely agree. I don't think we will every see native Windows on Apple Silicon, at least not unless something fundamentally changes. I was merely pointing out that there are hobbyists working on these kind of projects, since that is where the discussion went. As far as the original premise of this thread is concerned, you know what my opinion is. Virtualisation is the path forward, without any viable alternatives.
This notion is often repeated on these forums, but not technically true in the sense being driven by the first post in the thread. Native booting of Windows isn't solely up to Microsoft. Several essential pieces of bootcamp (e.g., drivers for Apple hardware) were written by Apple. It isn't Microsoft job or obligation to write drivers for every piece of hardware that runs under Windows.
Apple's incrementally growing virtualization framework just got virtualize GPU/GUI support for Linux. All they were running was mainly command line and basic VGA, old school, console terminal graphics.
The indirect quote in the arstechnica article is bit twisted ( but consistantly repeated as truth ).
"...
We asked what an Apple Silicon workflow will look like for a technologist who lives in multiple operating systems simultaneously. Federighi pointed out that the M1 Macs do use a virtualization framework that supports products like Parallels or VMWare, but he acknowledged that these would typically virtualize other ARM operating systems.
...
As for Windows running natively on the machine, "that's really up to Microsoft," he said. "We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications. But that's a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs. But the Macs are certainly very capable of it." ... "
“We are giddy”—interviewing Apple about its Mac silicon revolution
Craig Federighi, Johny Srouji, and Greg Joswiak tell us the Apple Silicon story.
arstechnica.com
"Bring the license to" is the context of virtualization ( native (unmodified binaries) ARM OS on a native ARM VM ). That isn't "bare metal" ('native' ) booting issue. Federighi is just looping back to what the article author paraphrased earlier. That "natively" is the author words; not Apple's.
Federighi said previous to this article that virtualization was Apple's supported path and they are not particularly interested in "bare metal native" booting. Apple's position is that virtualization is "fast enough" for almost everyone. Apple offers no documentation or explicit technical support to do bare metal booting.
Apple's initial virtualization framework didn't even support 3D graphics so how could they possibly be "all done" with everything that Windows needs? It wasn't. Parallels and VMWare's apps layered on the hypervisor framework were filling in the GPU and UEFI gaps. Apple had not laid out a complete foundation for Windows at launch.
That "deal" seems more like internet rumors than a real legal contract.
Announcement April 4, 2022:
"...
The Dpsv5 and Epsv5 Azure VM-series feature the Ampere Altra Arm-based processor operating at up to 3.0GHz. The new VMs provide up to 64 vCPUs and include VM sizes with 2GiB, 4GiB, and 8GiB per vCPU memory configurations, up to 40 Gbps networking, and optional high-performance local SSD storage.
The VMs currently in preview support Canonical Ubuntu Linux, CentOS, and Windows 11 Professional and Enterprise Edition on Arm. Support for additional operating systems including Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, Debian, AlmaLinux, and Flatcar is on the way. ..."
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/b...chines-with-ampere-altra-armbased-processors/
Windows 11 on Altra ARM processor. A not Qualcom SoC system running Windows . So much for the super duper exclusive contract. ( Windows Server has been on ARM years. You think that was contractally bound to smartphone SoCs all this time? )
The practical matter is that there hasn't be a PC class ARM processor that was open for OEMs to buy SoCs for other than what Qualcomm offered. The Snapdragon 8cx gen 3 is actually more than decent performance and it is just rolling out.
This has been discussed up and down and all over again. The only source for this claim is a published article where this quote is attributed to Federighi. So is't not really "Apple said it was up to Microsoft" but more "an ArsTechnica journalist claims that an Apple executive said that this was up to Microsoft". Given the fact that we have Federighi on record — in an actual video — saying that they are not considering direct booting other operating systems, it sends to reason that ArsTechnica either misinterpreted what Federighi was saying during the interview or the readers of that article are misinterpreting what the article was trying to say. See above excellent summary by @deconstruct60
I mean, they've certainly grown into something more substantial than that. But they certainly started as a rag-tag team.
and why is that? Why samsung or mediatek or Nvidia release their SoCs for sale on WoA in the retail space?
Enterprise is different from client.
This is not suprising. Maybe Apple had other things to fix first. Nested VM in A15/M2 now are available.
Point being even Microsoft is slow. They just released VS 2022 for ARM this YEAR when MS has been supporting ARM windows over 6 years now. Xcode was ARM when macOS on ARM/M1 came out.
Fair; I don't follow hacker news as much. Nor do I put too much stock into efforts like this until they prove more substantial.
Well, yeah. My point is that it's substantially trickier than any other standard ARM64 system.
It's not a matter of them being "slow". It's not the same priority for them as it is for Apple. Apple is wholesale shifting from x86-64 to ARM64 (albeit their own heavily customized subset of ARM64); whereas Microsoft never intended to do that. Microsoft wanted to offer it as an alternative to x86-64. Apple Silicon is probably responsible for those efforts picking up steam, but it's also the case that other ARM64 SoCs are now finally at the level of performance (and performance per watt) that it makes sense for Microsoft to start cheerleading for it for its developers.
Since this comes up so often, I timestamped the video where Craig and his fabulous hair specifically state the way forward for alternative operating systems is virtualization. I don't see how it could be more obvious that Boot Camp is being left behind with the transition from Intel to Apple Silicon. This is the guy who decides the future of Apple's operating systems.
I realize that in five years people will still be asking for Boot Camp, eGPU support, x86 compatibility, and a free pony. Still, it's important to dispel these notions whenever possible. Any other reality is composed of pixie dust and wish casting.
People said the same thing in February of 2006 prior to Boot Camp launching. Hell has frozen over here before. And it still stands to reason that both Apple and Microsoft benefit greatly by Windows for ARM64 coming to the Mac in SOME form.
I've said many times that I'd very much like Boot Camp on Apple Silicon, but I'm realistic enough to know that's not going to happen. Boot Camp was an easy win at the time; the engineering effort was small compared to the potential gain. For years @leman has repeatedly covered the technical reasons this isn't going to happen, there's a financial reason, as well.
From an Apple Insider article from two years ago, according to tracking data directly from sources who service Macs, only 2% of Intel users had Boot Camp installed in mid-2020. That is down from 15% in 2010. So, Boot Camp has become much less relevant over time. Apple Insider did an informal poll among their own readership and found that 35% of respondents had Boot Camp installed. The tech enthusiasts who visit the MacRumors forum do not reflect the general public.
That article was written five months before the M1 Macs began shipments. Boot Camp use among Intel users was already in significant decline, and with the transition to Apple Silicon, it's reduced even further. At this point, x86 Boot Camp installs are a rounding error on a spreadsheet, and I doubt either Apple or Microsoft care about that tiny sliver of people who want to run ARM Windows through Boot Camp on Apple Silicon.
I'm not trying to convince people who have Boot Camp on their personal wish list; they've made up their minds that it's going to come back some day, and nothing anyone can say will change their minds. I just don't want folks who are new to this issue to get false hope based upon zero evidence, when in fact, all evidence points to the opposite. If Craig's magnificent hair and definitive words aren't enough, then I don't know what is.
Except that there is no reason why they would ever want to do this.
There isn't much value in speculating about it, since it's never going to happen.
And cloud solutions, Teams etc… Microsoft doesn’t care that much whether you use Windows. They care that you use office and the place you work uses their enterprise platform.
That said, I do firmly believe that official windows for Apple Silicon virtual machines is just a question of time.
Individuals, not so much, OEM's, yes. They get a lot of money out of companies that sell Windows machines!
I'm not convinced of that, but I hope it happens. It depends on a lot of other things happening too and in the right order. Not the least of which is that ARM chips become a significant part of the market for PC's.
As I said before, I think it is a virtual certainty that Windows 11 optimised for Apple silicon ARM will come within a few years.
Apple has now demonstrated that the future (of at least the laptop) is ARM. DELL, HP and all the others will start to release ARM laptops and Microsoft will make sure those laptops run Windows. At this point, making sure it runs well on a Mac in a VM is pretty low hanging fruit. When Microsoft is finally starting to sell Windows 11 ARM licenses, they are not going to leave money on the table. Of course they will be happy to sell a Windows license to a Mac user, they don't care if I use an HP or an Apple as long as I use their software.
There are countless companies still running ancient software written for Windows 95 or even DOS. If you can continue using your ancient software in a VM and not spend a fortune upgrading (or migrating because the manufacturer is long gone), you probably will. I have built such systems myself.
As for booting, no, probably not. But I don't see who would actually care. Virtualisation is going to be good enough for pretty much everything. Windows 11 ARM already runs fine under qemu, and the x86 compatibility layer Microsoft has is a lot better now than it was when Apple released the M1 in 2020.
Apple has now demonstrated that the future (of at least the laptop) is ARM. DELL, HP and all the others will start to release ARM laptops and Microsoft will make sure those laptops run Windows. At this point, making sure it runs well on a Mac in a VM is pretty low hanging fruit. When Microsoft is finally starting to sell Windows 11 ARM licenses, they are not going to leave money on the table. Of course they will be happy to sell a Windows license to a Mac user, they don't care if I use an HP or an Apple as long as I use their software.
There are countless companies still running ancient software written for Windows 95 or even DOS. If you can continue using your ancient software in a VM and not spend a fortune upgrading (or migrating because the manufacturer is long gone), you probably will. I have built such systems myself.
As for booting, no, probably not. But I don't see who would actually care. Virtualisation is going to be good enough for pretty much everything. Windows 11 ARM already runs fine under qemu, and the x86 compatibility layer Microsoft has is a lot better now than it was when Apple released the M1 in 2020.
Not even close for us x86 Windows guys, which is still the market leader by a good margin. I no longer even own a M1, or any other ARM processor laptop. That's not changing anytime soon either.
I still have my M1 Studio Max at home, and an Intel Mini, but there's no way I'll be buying an apple laptop in the foreseeable future.
I have an Intel and an AMD laptop though. The Intel laptop has a better screen than Apple's and the AMD competes performance-wise.
Old hardware is a dime a dozen, you can always find parts in the Win95+ timeframe. We don't use VM's for that and they really don't work for it anyway as we would need ISA or PCI card support, which is definitely not happening. We don't run any apple hardware at work other than iPhones.
Not me, I never did to begin with as I never used Bootcamp. VM's on intel Mac's were useful to me, but not any longer. For now, if I need a Windows app when I'm using my Studio, I RDP into one of my Windows PC's.