Does Windows run better on an M1 over an Intel Mac? Couldn’t Apple have a larger slice of the pc market if they made it easier to use Windows? What made the experience on an Intel Mac not great, and could an M1 improve this experience?
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.
Windows on M1?
- Thread starter Kierkegaarden
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I owned an M1 Mac and windows doesn't work at all really. Yes there is is insider preview of windows for arm you can install, but most programs won't work or have terrible performance. Don't believe the Youtubers running a few benchmarks to test performance and stating; "it's more powerful for windows than ultrabooks" because it's only true in theory, not in practical use.
Microsoft working hard on X86 emulation for its ARM Windows, but it's gonna be more challenging than it was for Apple to create Rosetta since Windows programs are more likely to use more "near hardware" software functionality, which is harder to emulate correctly.
With Rosetta Apple took the decision to remove kernel extensions, which is similar. In other words, advanced app functionality for ARM processors, whether on Windows or Mac can in general not be solved my emulation. Neither Rosetta or Microsoft upcoming emulation. Instead, it's up to app developers. With ARM gaining traction maybe in 2 years from now ARM (Windows machines and Macs) are great for everything.
Microsoft working hard on X86 emulation for its ARM Windows, but it's gonna be more challenging than it was for Apple to create Rosetta since Windows programs are more likely to use more "near hardware" software functionality, which is harder to emulate correctly.
With Rosetta Apple took the decision to remove kernel extensions, which is similar. In other words, advanced app functionality for ARM processors, whether on Windows or Mac can in general not be solved my emulation. Neither Rosetta or Microsoft upcoming emulation. Instead, it's up to app developers. With ARM gaining traction maybe in 2 years from now ARM (Windows machines and Macs) are great for everything.
M1 is not helping software in any case ever really. But it's more power-efficient, that's all that it's about. This is really all that matters too, more power in a smaller package has always and will always be the future.
Phones with computer power -> Laptops with desktop power -> Desktops with NASA power.
Phones with computer power -> Laptops with desktop power -> Desktops with NASA power.
No.
No.
If you are referencing Windows, the design of the Mac and software optimization is the problem. Unlike most PCs, Macs has relatively weak cooling system that is hard to deal with Intel chip's heat. This was a problem even in "optimized" macOS, less optimized Windows made this situation even worse.
Although M1 does solve the throttling issue, it does not improve Windows experience so much in my opinion. Windows relies on x86 programs heavily so you have to simulate almost every program you want to run, and Microsoft still ships a lot of arm32 apps that is not compatible with M1.
This is not true. Macbooks have had pretty great cooling in comparison to other leading laptops in recent years, even including the 15" Macbook Pro. The problem for all wanting Windows Intel laptops is and have been exactly the same as with Macbooks, see example the leading Dells XPS line of laptops. It's the same.
That's why I said "most".
Intel chips' heap problem is not only a Mac problem, but Mac does suffer from that.
It's not true as I said, XPS Line I'm referring to is one of the best in terms of cooling system.
I've had positive experience with latest Windows on ARM builds, it runs all the legacy tools we need for work. But it's still very far from being a complete and reliable solution.
Not sure what you mean by this. What kind of "advanced functionality" are you talking about?
Online file sharing, backup, graphic works, 3d modelling, music production, movie production etc... There is more or less no popular leading app in those segments that doesn't partially require some near hardware complicated functionality that is not emulated well.
Intel Macs made it very easy to run Windows, so I’m not really sure what you are asking. I don’t think Apple cares much about selling PCs to run Windows, they want you to run their system and use their services. If you are primarily interested in Windows, there are a lot of great PC makers.
I have to say, as a reasonably experienced programmer with a decent knowledge of low-level coding, I don’t really understand what you mean. There is no “complicated functionality” here. All these apps use standard CPU features and standard APIs - just like any other app.
Take music production, there may be audio problems, and a lot 3rd party plugins/instruments are not emulated good(not work at all even with rosetta), especially plugins requiring these kernel extensions for like mid audio processing or if they have AI kind functionality for analyzing music which mastering plugins have. So no top producer gonna use an M1 mac anytime soon.
Google File Stream doesn't still work, maybe cause it's functionality can't take advantage of Rosettasince it's not an app you use standalone. Or maybe because it's using some system kernel stuff. So it had to be completely rewritten to work at all.
And 3d and rendering software is a lot of trouble getting working correctly since the GPU is now something completely different. There are Cinema 4D with M1 support now thanks to Apple investing to help developers make these 3D programs now a days. But trouble persists since the plugins situation which is very important (cinema 4d is often more of a hub than a standalone program) is not good.
I would say good functional emulation of 3D software, which would include games is not gonna happen on Windows ARM anytime even remotely soon is my guess. And Since Windows is more of 3D home ground than MAC, Microsoft have a problem. Apple is more or less starting on a clean sheet with 3D now. Investing a lot into it. So intel/AMD Windows gonna be home to 3D the upcoming closest years.
You’re right — it was a poor choice of words. I was trying to figure out why Apple didn’t get a bigger slice of the market after the Intel transition — I didn’t know if it was an Intel limitation or not.
Without personal experience, I can't say much about how well M1 machines support Windows.
Strategically speaking, though, I think Apple's assumption at this point is that Windows compatibility is not a key factor. They have a bigger prize in mind, compatibility with the iOS world, which is not only comparable in size to the Windows 10 userbase, but has the advantage of being theirs.
As far as Apple's market share after the Intel switch, by the end of '07 (with the first Intel iMac coming out Jan '06) they had more than double the market share they had in '05. It's hard to know for sure what the immediate cause was, but it's fair to say that Windows compatibility didn't hurt them at all. The famous "Get a Mac" ad campaign and disastrous Windows Vista rollout also coincided with this time period and may have contributed.
Strategically speaking, though, I think Apple's assumption at this point is that Windows compatibility is not a key factor. They have a bigger prize in mind, compatibility with the iOS world, which is not only comparable in size to the Windows 10 userbase, but has the advantage of being theirs.
As far as Apple's market share after the Intel switch, by the end of '07 (with the first Intel iMac coming out Jan '06) they had more than double the market share they had in '05. It's hard to know for sure what the immediate cause was, but it's fair to say that Windows compatibility didn't hurt them at all. The famous "Get a Mac" ad campaign and disastrous Windows Vista rollout also coincided with this time period and may have contributed.
Last edited:
Haha yes, Imagine school officials talking about what computer to buy, "it can only run mac apps, not enough for all classes" , "no it can run windows too!"
Speaking of the strategy. Windows have always had the most compatibility, but since it seems ARM or other new architects is the future and Microsoft will have trouble porting their existing powers in compatibility to those. This means Apple and Google probably have their best shot ever at taking over the Crown from Microsoft in that area if thinking many years ahead. They probably not gonna do that though. Cause Microsoft is gonna do everything they can to remain number one and they have a ton of app developers with them. In the end customers decide.
I see what you mean, but most of these things have to do with the fact that Apple is changing their extension model as well as with these industries lacking agility. These are often large, complex codebases of mediocre quality, which are difficult to maintain. Apple was never a good choice if you need software stability, they change the system stuff too often.
It can really go either way at this point. Apple's own GPUs are potentially very interesting for gaming, but they require the developer to adopt their proprietary frameworks. Also, Apple has a unique advantage in VR — they don't need a large and hot GPU to drive VR, not to mention that they have some dedicated hardware to support efficient foveated rendering. It depends on how the developers react. At least one upcoming AAA title (Baldur's Gates 3) has already committed to supporting Apple Silicon, I am sure that more will follow. If Epic decides to scrap Mac support from UE4, they might lose market share to Unity. It's a complicated matter.
if I remember correctly, Appel did gain market share, but I doubt it had much to do with their ability to run Windows. If you don't care about macOS/OS X, there are better options out there. In the end, a Mac is a very expensive computer and using it to run Windows is a bit... suboptimal, especially on laptops (poor energy management, outdated drivers etc.).
Personally, I believe that Apple is comfortable with it's ~10% market share. They are not after the total PC market share (which is dominated by slow, low-quality boxes used in offices — not much money can be made from users who refuse to spend more than $500 on a computer), they are after the premium PC market share. And Apple is doing quite well here. They basically own the AIO market, the Mac Mini is a very popular office box in it's own segment (my university uses them exclusively for classrooms — that's alone several thousands of minis) and the Mac laptop is a de-facto standard for premium laptops. I am fairly sure that Apple sells more of >$1200 laptops than any other non-gaming laptop.
Maybe it's a good idea to remind people that Apple is not merely after just market share. Apple is going after the best profit margin. Take the iPhone. Android became the majority marketshare, but majority of the profits go to Apple. The same with PCs. Most PC OEMs are running razor thin margins, and their large volume sellers are their lower end models. Apple obviously doesn't want to touch that, even if that means they won't have a larger market share. They want to gain market share due to people desiring their brand and spending the money, not being the loss leader.
Makes sense. At this point, the mobile part is more important, and thus supporting iOS is a bigger priority than Windows. Besides, majority of things are now cloud based, even on enterprise stuff. For many people, the OS doesn't matter anymore.
Doubt we'll ever see usable Windows or Linux on M1 if Apple doesn't provide drivers and they remain closed source.
Within the span of three posts, you shift from saying the XPS has better cooling than the Mac to saying the Macs are "best in class" for cooling. The Epic suit is irrelevant to the question of running windows on a Mac though, as that is a case of Epic wanting to keep more money instead of complying with either the Apple App Store or Google Play Store terms of service. The motivation for greed is why they are currently suing both Apple and Google and also trying to get state legislatures in states like South Dakota to pass legislation they wrote that would force Apple and Google to allow competing app stores on their platforms.
Wrong. The issue in the creative space isn't the applications themselves. The vast majority of those either have already been recompiled for the M1 or run just find under Rosetta 2. The issue is that many of the plugins either use older frameworks that are no longer supported or are 32-bit only, which means they wouldn't even run on an Intel Mac running Catalina or later.
Google File Stream isn't working because Google doesn't want to rewrite it for the M1. As far as 3D/rendering software goes, the underlying APIs (e.g. Metal) are identical to the Intel Macs, and the issue is the plugins, which are usually developed by third parties rather than the software developers themselves.
UE4 is a gaming engine, so Epic's crusade against Apple will have no effect on the 3D market as a whole. Apple has been at the forefront of 3D software (which is more than just gaming related apps) for decades, just as it has been the go to for publishing, music production, etc. in the same timespan. How is Apple starting with a "clean sheet" when they have already brought their existing APIs and tools to the M1?
Good point, and I agree that this the better position for anyone in any market. I believe they do want to make the experience as good as possible, and creating an environment that is equally good for macOS and Windows would probably lead to a product that isn’t good for either.Maybe it's a good idea to remind people that Apple is not merely after just market share. Apple is going after the best profit margin. Take the iPhone. Android became the majority marketshare, but majority of the profits go to Apple. The same with PCs. Most PC OEMs are running razor thin margins, and their large volume sellers are their lower end models. Apple obviously doesn't want to touch that, even if that means they won't have a larger market share. They want to gain market share due to people desiring their brand and spending the money, not being the loss leader.