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
Sure, if you need actual hardware, then a VM is going to be tough. As for buying old PCs or components, that tends to lead to a lot of work. These components are about 30 years old by now, and reliability isn't that great. But yeah, if you need ISA then I assume there is no better alternative. (Not a hardware guy though, so I'm just speculating.)
And while x86 is going to be around in some capacity for a long time, I still think it is going to be ARM in most computers within a decade. Ampere has brilliant efficiency compared to Xeon and EPYC. Electricity is getting more and more expensive.
The old stuff is actually more reliable, even counting the age, especially in the mill. And all the work is mine.
More a cost thing than actual hardware -- we can replace the old cards (AB data highway stuff), no doubt of that, but it would be costly, *much* more than the cost of a PC, plus there's one PLC that we would have to replace that is not compatible with a modern OS.
That's why I don't see things changing fast. For me as the IT manager, job is the most important thing, then cost, and a LOT of the stuff we have only runs on x86 stuff. Ironically, we also have an IBM Power9 machine.
Let's say for a second that somehow we get an official Windows release that runs through bootcamp on Apple Silicon...
If I'm developing software for Windows on x86, would I still need an x86 Windows dev machine? I currently have an Intel iMac 27 but would like to upgrade at some point.
Also wondering if even with official Windows on AS support, would 3rd party software developers then need to release an ARM version of their software for it to also run on AS?
Thanks for the input guys...
If I'm developing software for Windows on x86, would I still need an x86 Windows dev machine? I currently have an Intel iMac 27 but would like to upgrade at some point.
Also wondering if even with official Windows on AS support, would 3rd party software developers then need to release an ARM version of their software for it to also run on AS?
Thanks for the input guys...
Not sure if this helps you or not, But I was able to install MAGIX (formerly Sony) ACID Pro Version 8 via Disc/SuperDrive. System Requirements list Windows 7, 8, 10 and either x86 or x64 machines. This is on a Parallels VM of Windows 11 on ARM. It works very well! Better than I remember it from a few years back, 4 years or so. Before there was an Apple Silicon based Mac at least. The Windows side of the virtualization seems to work well (x86 to x64), and the M1's and M2 Macs run Windows on ARM very well in a VM.
Thanks for that. It's been a long time since I tried Windows in a VM, but the last time I did the performance was poor. Slow UI response etc., enough to drive me nuts
I'm guessing that is no longer the case?
I had a 2015 MBP and chose to go the AS route as opposed to another Intel machine, and kinda forced myself to figure it out and/or wait. The very first Parallels Tech Preview, for me anyway, worked absolutely perfect for what I need it for. And it’s only gotten better over time. Not so sure about gaming, though, but ACID Pro and Cubase have been working great in a VM. I have a bunch of recordings from years ago in my pre-Mac days that I’m still able to go over when needed. Everything continues to work for for me, too, with the latest Ventura Beta.Thanks for that. It's been a long time since I tried Windows in a VM, but the last time I did the performance was poor. Slow UI response etc., enough to drive me nuts
Because Windows was easy to do on the Intel Macs, it was inevitable that it would come whether Apple helped or not. People had already hacked together solutions when Apple added the official BootCamp support. I suspect that had a lot do with Apple's decision to create BootCamp.
Did you know that Microsoft has the same number of cpu designers as Apple does? They do. And if you run a vm on Azure then you are using one of their ARM processors.
I very much doubt that. They are licensing Qualcomm for Surface and Ampere for Azure.
It's also about quality, not quantity. There aren't a lot of engineers out there in that space. Apple only use the ARM ISA and built their own core out over a decade. Microsoft doesn't have enough market leverage to attract the talent and I suspect are just using licensed IP from ARM and just building an SoC around it in house.
Edit: Also AWS is has some shockingly good stuff coming.
Do you have a link to support that? I haven't read that they have released their own CPU yet but I could have missed it. They seem to be working on something though.
All of those others are even "weaker" than the Qualcomm SoC offering. How exactly would those 'help' the Windows on Arm market do better against the entrenched x86? It would not.
Where Microsoft targeted the Windows on Arm was toward "Always connected PC". 4G LTE. That is partially driven by Qualcomm ( it is there strength point.. the others tail even more on that front also).
Mediatek got some Chromebook design wins but there are no "game changing" wins over on ChromeOS for those other players either. If can "game change" on ChromeOS how going to have a major impact on the more heavyweight Windows ? Did any of the ARM offerings get any Chromebox design wins? Again that is even more illustrative of lack of ability to play role for Windows (desktop).
What top end smartphone , performance win does that line of up alternatives have in the period 2-4 years ago? ( if throw out Samsung eating their own dogfood SoC ... Even they have Qualcomm models in some countries with their SoC subbed out. ). It is about zero. So why would there be a win for a Windows PC?
If Microsoft didn't want to create a "race to the bottom" set of products then they'd just work on the SoC at the top and not put effort into the others. That doesn't take a rigid contractual exclusivity contract. Can do that with a fixed budget and targeted effort. Vendors compete for the one slot and the loosers are just out. ( similar to the 'bake offs' that Apple holds for Mac products in previous years. )
That is somewhat wishy-washy when it comes to the Windows operating system and most Windows apps.
Windows Server has some scheduler and low level differences but there is lots of overlap between the entire OS bundle between "client" and "server".
That is "Fixed" in hardware, not software. The crux of the "bare metal boot" issue is software (or at best 'firmware'), not hardware. That doesn't demonstrate much about large shifts in Apple's software priorities.
The VS 2022 basic foundation went 64-bit for this version. ARM is weaved into that shift, but VS was hooked to 32 bit versions of Windows for a very long while to support a very broad range of Operating System. Apple chops off macOS support for dev tools in like 4 (maybe 5 ) macOS iterations if you are lucky. It would have made very little sense to pour lots of effort into 32-bit VS for ARM when were just going to drop it in a couple of a years.
Windows going to 64 bit only foundation helps clean out the 1980's , 1990's bloat that Windows has been carrying around for a long while. That should help ARM solutions, because a boatload of stuff the last century is really a boat anchor. Partly why Apple chucked all the 32-bit stuff in the "trash can" before moving over to Macs on Arm. XCode spent about a decade cross compiling apps for Arm iOS. Folks were "limited" cross compiling Wndows Arm from Windows x86 ? Not anymore than the iOS ecosystem was and it turned out OK.
The Apple ARM SoC was at a different stage of die size and performance evolution when Apple made the switch. Microsoft went with a "first mover at any cost" strategy with smartphone SoCs for the "PC" products and that had issues.
Specifically in the being actively deployed Windows area, it is not large. But Microsoft does have folks working on non Windows fronts.
Microsoft is hiring former Qualcomm engineers to work on its quantum computing team
Microsoft has been staffing up its quantum computing project with a number of former Qualcomm engineers and managers.
www.zdnet.com
Qualcomm to Work With Microsoft on Custom Chips for AR Glasses
Qualcomm has invested aggressively in chips to go in consumer devices such as smart watches, high-end wireless headphones, and mixed reality glasses such as Microsoft's HoloLens...
HoloLens 2 will have a custom AI chip designed by Microsoft
In the race to build faster on-device AI, more companies are creating their own silicon
If toss Apple's celluar modem folks into the pile then very probably a smaller group. (that's a set that don't have a shipping product to show for either. ) Both Apple and Microsoft have a bit of an 'iceberg' effect where there is more "underwater" than can be seen for the more highly visible portion poking up above the waterline.
When another company dumps a whole team there are folks out there.
Which is why Microsoft is ramping ( even if the quantum thing didn't work out, just to have folks in house if useful )
Well, there is a guy trying to make it work. Using a fork from ASAHI linux for the development :
You assume that Windows for ARM is a thing. But as it stands now, it's not. The single best things going on for Windows are backwards compatibility and games, and when they simply move towards ARM without a Rosetta 2-like solution, both (admittedly huge) advantages would break. So consumers would have no reason to make the switch because it's just an inferior version of Windows, really. That's how it is today, Microsoft knows it, and that's why Windows on ARM is just for Windows Insiders. Nobody can buy a licence today, and there's a lot of technical reasons for it. Sad, but true.
Windows for ARM actually does have a Rosetta 2-like solution built in. You can actually run x86 Windows software even inside a VM running in Parallels on an Apple Silicon Mac.
Unfortunately, that's not quite what Rosetta 2 is about. Rosetta 2 is about running any software for x86 Macs, and if you compare what works on Windows for ARM out of the box, it's not even a competition.
Most likely a Windows Insider build of Windows on ARM that's not for everyone to buy, right?
Is there a list of software known not to run inside the Windows' emulation solution? I only played with it inside a VM for an afternoon or so, but I didn't encounter a problem.
Sure, and if your argument for ARM windows not being a thing boils down to lack of public support, then you are technically right. But at the same time, there is a simpler explanation to ARM Windows being restricted to insider builds - lack of independent hardware. It would be utter nonsense from business perspective to offer support for a product that does not run on certified hardware, and Microsoft never supported running Windows in a non-compliant VMs. Insider builds is their way of saying “use at your own risk”. But one can’t in good conscience deny that they are investing a lot of resources to make Windows play nice with ARM.
Just to be clear, you can buy a Windows 10 or Windows 11 Product Key and then use that to Activate Windows on ARM. When you buy the physical Windows 'product' itself, like a USB installer or a disc installer, it'll come in the x64_x86 versions. There's been many previous threads/comments posted about the difference between Licensing Windows and Activating Windows. I've also been told many times to expect my Activated Parallels VM of Windows 10 Pro, licensed with a key I purchased a few years before Apple released the M1, to 'stop working', which is totally laughable. Yes, you have to download an Insider Preview build to get going, and then during the course of regular updates you drop out of the Dev Channel back to the Release Channel. I've been off the Dev Channel for quite some time and there has been no sign that this will 'stop working' at any point.
As for how x86 emulation works in Windows on ARM, see here (which only showcases how powerful the M1 & M2 Macs are, that they can run another Operating System in a Virtual Machine, powerful enough to then emulate an x86 to x64 emulation within THAT Operating System.. Like inception).
As for how x86 emulation works in Windows on ARM, see here (which only showcases how powerful the M1 & M2 Macs are, that they can run another Operating System in a Virtual Machine, powerful enough to then emulate an x86 to x64 emulation within THAT Operating System.. Like inception).
Last edited:
Well, I could argue that there were things like Windows RT where they had the chance to really blow us away with the complete package, meaning Windows on ARM + hardware. But Microsoft failed to do so, and years later, the software support seems to be really lacking, too. My last update was that even Office had trouble to run smoothly on ARM, and it seems they need some more time until it's up to snuff. Or is there any announcement I was missing?
When Windows RT was released (a variant of Windows 8), it was built on the 32-bit ARM Architecture which lacked support for running apps built for x86 processors. And then everything else went x64. Not to mention it was based on a version of Windows 8 that really only let you install apps from the Microsoft App Store which didn't have the robust selection of apps on Apple's App Store. And since Office is a Flagship app of Microsoft's, they had a version of it built for their Surface, and since none of this was selling for them very well, and with the transition away from that kind of app binary, no reason to really support it as this would be a money pit for Microsoft.
Now, if there was some kind of announcement or something that Windows on ARM would be for sale and officially running via BootCamp on macOS? This would also be a waste of time, even though they'd sell some Windows licenses, it would only help Apple sell more hardware.
You must have been living under a rock over the last few years. Office is running smoothly on ARM systems much slower than the M1.