Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Of the 20 million Macs that sell a year, if over 2 million of those ever see bootcamp I would be shocked. Of those at most 2 million yearly that are now without bootcamp, most will just get an HP or Lenovo desktop - one with a recent Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia or AMD GPU can cost as little as $500 so not that big of a deal - to complement their primary Mac device. Of the very few remaining that will actually ditch macOS completely over this, they will be replaced several times over by the new customers that Apple Silicon will attract. So they will sell more Macs and will be able to redeploy the programmers responsible for bootcamp to much better tasks. No downside to this for Apple.
Apple didn't get where it is by caring only and exclusively about sales and profit.
Quite the opposite really....
There is no downside to Apple to enable Windows to run under Bootcamp. None.
Just ideological hubris.
Bull. That means Apple has to spend time and money to enable Windows to work with the hardware. Drivers and stuff must work and Apple would have to do that work. There is no magic, nor is it free for Apple to do so. That is a downside.
LOL... For a company the size of Apple that wouldn't make even a tiniest blip on the P&L. It would get lost in rounding.
Any other excuses?
It is still a downside, not my fault you can’t see it. Your suggestion is for Apple to spend resources on this when it would serve lots more people on on their projects? Could Apple do it? Sure, however Apple is highly unlikely to do so. Waste of resources.
"I can't see it?" No, I can see it - and think its a ridiculous excuse
Some would consider Windows a ridiculous waste on Macs. You can want Apple to support Windows on the Mac, however it is reason, supported by business studies, that Windows is not worth the trouble for Apple to support. Nothing wrong with wishing I guess. Yes I can understand the need, however you can take a dump in one had and wish in another hand, then see what fills up first. It was only a side benefit, that Windows ever ram on Macs. You will turn blue in the face before Apple supports Windows on the Mac as the market is too small, even though it is important to some people. It is better for other vendors to take up that market. Business 101 says not to support Windows on the Mac for Apple. Not an excuse, but valid business reasons.
Sorry, but Windows is and will remain the dominant OS. And, as such, many applications (both custom and retail) will only run on Windows. For those who need or want to run them, Windows is necessary.
Apple recognized that it's ability to meet all needs is limited and created BootCamp because of it. That shows not only respect for their customers and their needs but good business sense.
Where is the people complaining they can’t run Windows on their Intel Mac? I’ve said it before, but Windows on a Mac was always a side benefit.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
“Many A small number of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows.” There, I fixed it for you.
Nothing I wrote needed fixing. Park your ego elsewhere. As much as I prefer MacOS, Windows has been, and always will be (for a very long time) the primary desktop OS for the enterprise. Get over it. I did. There's room for both, and I found my Macs to be the best Windows machines ever, and I went though a lot of PC's before I bought my first Mac.
....
Apple’s business model is running Mac OS on Macs, not Windows on Macs.
If that were true they would not have created BootCamp.
No, Apple's business model is and has been: Meeting the needs of its current and future customers better than any other alternative.
I did some research into the TPM issue. None of my Windows PCs have TPM enabled. The reason is that I like to boot Windows on an external SSD to test beta versions of the OS but in order to do that you have to change the firmware to boot using legacy mode rather than UFEI. You have to enable UFEI to enable TPM. If you do enable UFEI the firmware warns that you will probably have to reinstall Windows. My conclusion is that a large number of users may have TPM disabled in their firmware for various reasons and enabling it may require them to reinstall Windows. That's a significant hurdle for most people. If they can do it themselves, they should expect to spend a weekend to get their system up and running again. If they can't they should expect to pay a lot of money to someone to do it for them and lose access to their system and quite possibly risk their personal data getting lost or stolen. The work around presented here may not last forever. Microsoft seems to be motivated to close security holes like this one. There is a very real possibility that users may avoid upgrading to Windows 11. This in turn may cause developers to not support the new version if there are not enough users who have upgraded to it. If users that have migrated find that their software won't run on the new version they could downgrade back to Windows 10. Microsoft could be forced to continue to support for Windows 10 in parallel with Windows 11. Imagine how big of a mess that would be.
Excellent analysis....
I found it interesting that on Microsoft's Windows 11 page they suggested buying a new PC! I though that was odd for a software company.
There will, of course, be people out there who will justify getting a new PC in order to run WIndows 11. I say "Go for it!". That'll just leave more used PCs out there for me. Will they be as secure as a new PC running Windows 11? Probably not. But I use other methods to gain security: mostly I use different PCs for general use versus secure stuff like financials. My financial PC is locked down and only visits a limited number of secure sites. It's not bullet proof - but then nothing is.
Microsoft recommended people buy a new PC to run Windows 95. It's not unprecedented.
I don't remember that -- but neither do I doubt it.
Back
then the system requirements of every new release of software was
exceeding the ability of existing or legacy hardware to run it. Plus,
Microsoft -- a software company -- was trying to match the software of
both the Macintosh as well as OS2 -- and was looking pretty shabby in
comparison.
Today the opposite is true:
existing hardware has excess power over the requirements of the OS (the
requirements of Windows 11 are pretty minimal) -- EXCEPT for security
and that TPM 2.0
Could it be that, with all the hacks by government and private entities that security will start driving things just as user friendliness and functional UI's drove it in the past?
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Of the 20 million Macs that sell a year, if over 2 million of those ever see bootcamp I would be shocked. Of those at most 2 million yearly that are now without bootcamp, most will just get an HP or Lenovo desktop - one with a recent Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia or AMD GPU can cost as little as $500 so not that big of a deal - to complement their primary Mac device. Of the very few remaining that will actually ditch macOS completely over this, they will be replaced several times over by the new customers that Apple Silicon will attract. So they will sell more Macs and will be able to redeploy the programmers responsible for bootcamp to much better tasks. No downside to this for Apple.
Apple didn't get where it is by caring only and exclusively about sales and profit.
Quite the opposite really....
There is no downside to Apple to enable Windows to run under Bootcamp. None.
Just ideological hubris.
Bull. That means Apple has to spend time and money to enable Windows to work with the hardware. Drivers and stuff must work and Apple would have to do that work. There is no magic, nor is it free for Apple to do so. That is a downside.
LOL... For a company the size of Apple that wouldn't make even a tiniest blip on the P&L. It would get lost in rounding.
Any other excuses?
It is still a downside, not my fault you can’t see it. Your suggestion is for Apple to spend resources on this when it would serve lots more people on on their projects? Could Apple do it? Sure, however Apple is highly unlikely to do so. Waste of resources.
"I can't see it?" No, I can see it - and think its a ridiculous excuse
Some would consider Windows a ridiculous waste on Macs. You can want Apple to support Windows on the Mac, however it is reason, supported by business studies, that Windows is not worth the trouble for Apple to support. Nothing wrong with wishing I guess. Yes I can understand the need, however you can take a dump in one had and wish in another hand, then see what fills up first. It was only a side benefit, that Windows ever ram on Macs. You will turn blue in the face before Apple supports Windows on the Mac as the market is too small, even though it is important to some people. It is better for other vendors to take up that market. Business 101 says not to support Windows on the Mac for Apple. Not an excuse, but valid business reasons.
Sorry, but Windows is and will remain the dominant OS. And, as such, many applications (both custom and retail) will only run on Windows. For those who need or want to run them, Windows is necessary.
Apple recognized that it's ability to meet all needs is limited and created BootCamp because of it. That shows not only respect for their customers and their needs but good business sense.
... Are you suggesting that they have lost both?
You are certainly being thick headed. I have said Windows is not the dominant OS. I said that Mac OS is a small percentage, and those wanting to run Windows OS on Macs will always be a small percentage. As I said knock yourself out on running Windows on Macs. Apple has never tried to satisfy all users.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Of the 20 million Macs that sell a year, if over 2 million of those ever see bootcamp I would be shocked. Of those at most 2 million yearly that are now without bootcamp, most will just get an HP or Lenovo desktop - one with a recent Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia or AMD GPU can cost as little as $500 so not that big of a deal - to complement their primary Mac device. Of the very few remaining that will actually ditch macOS completely over this, they will be replaced several times over by the new customers that Apple Silicon will attract. So they will sell more Macs and will be able to redeploy the programmers responsible for bootcamp to much better tasks. No downside to this for Apple.
Apple didn't get where it is by caring only and exclusively about sales and profit.
Quite the opposite really....
There is no downside to Apple to enable Windows to run under Bootcamp. None.
Just ideological hubris.
Bull. That means Apple has to spend time and money to enable Windows to work with the hardware. Drivers and stuff must work and Apple would have to do that work. There is no magic, nor is it free for Apple to do so. That is a downside.
LOL... For a company the size of Apple that wouldn't make even a tiniest blip on the P&L. It would get lost in rounding.
Any other excuses?
It is still a downside, not my fault you can’t see it. Your suggestion is for Apple to spend resources on this when it would serve lots more people on on their projects? Could Apple do it? Sure, however Apple is highly unlikely to do so. Waste of resources.
"I can't see it?" No, I can see it - and think its a ridiculous excuse
Some would consider Windows a ridiculous waste on Macs. You can want Apple to support Windows on the Mac, however it is reason, supported by business studies, that Windows is not worth the trouble for Apple to support. Nothing wrong with wishing I guess. Yes I can understand the need, however you can take a dump in one had and wish in another hand, then see what fills up first. It was only a side benefit, that Windows ever ram on Macs. You will turn blue in the face before Apple supports Windows on the Mac as the market is too small, even though it is important to some people. It is better for other vendors to take up that market. Business 101 says not to support Windows on the Mac for Apple. Not an excuse, but valid business reasons.
Sorry, but Windows is and will remain the dominant OS. And, as such, many applications (both custom and retail) will only run on Windows. For those who need or want to run them, Windows is necessary.
Apple recognized that it's ability to meet all needs is limited and created BootCamp because of it. That shows not only respect for their customers and their needs but good business sense.
... Are you suggesting that they have lost both?
You are certainly being thick headed. I have said Windows is not the dominant OS. I said that Mac OS is a small percentage, and those wanting to run Windows OS on Macs will always be a small percentage. As I said knock yourself out on running Windows on Macs. Apple has never tried to satisfy all users.
That's true. But neither has it ignored and spurned its users and their needs. No successful company does stupid thing like that.
It's the heart of capitalism and its biggest (only?) benefit: If you don't meet customer needs, someone else will.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Of the 20 million Macs that sell a year, if over 2 million of those ever see bootcamp I would be shocked. Of those at most 2 million yearly that are now without bootcamp, most will just get an HP or Lenovo desktop - one with a recent Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia or AMD GPU can cost as little as $500 so not that big of a deal - to complement their primary Mac device. Of the very few remaining that will actually ditch macOS completely over this, they will be replaced several times over by the new customers that Apple Silicon will attract. So they will sell more Macs and will be able to redeploy the programmers responsible for bootcamp to much better tasks. No downside to this for Apple.
Apple didn't get where it is by caring only and exclusively about sales and profit.
Quite the opposite really....
There is no downside to Apple to enable Windows to run under Bootcamp. None.
Just ideological hubris.
Bull. That means Apple has to spend time and money to enable Windows to work with the hardware. Drivers and stuff must work and Apple would have to do that work. There is no magic, nor is it free for Apple to do so. That is a downside.
LOL... For a company the size of Apple that wouldn't make even a tiniest blip on the P&L. It would get lost in rounding.
Any other excuses?
It is still a downside, not my fault you can’t see it. Your suggestion is for Apple to spend resources on this when it would serve lots more people on on their projects? Could Apple do it? Sure, however Apple is highly unlikely to do so. Waste of resources.
"I can't see it?" No, I can see it - and think its a ridiculous excuse
Some would consider Windows a ridiculous waste on Macs. You can want Apple to support Windows on the Mac, however it is reason, supported by business studies, that Windows is not worth the trouble for Apple to support. Nothing wrong with wishing I guess. Yes I can understand the need, however you can take a dump in one had and wish in another hand, then see what fills up first. It was only a side benefit, that Windows ever ram on Macs. You will turn blue in the face before Apple supports Windows on the Mac as the market is too small, even though it is important to some people. It is better for other vendors to take up that market. Business 101 says not to support Windows on the Mac for Apple. Not an excuse, but valid business reasons.
Sorry, but Windows is and will remain the dominant OS. And, as such, many applications (both custom and retail) will only run on Windows. For those who need or want to run them, Windows is necessary.
Apple recognized that it's ability to meet all needs is limited and created BootCamp because of it. That shows not only respect for their customers and their needs but good business sense.
... Are you suggesting that they have lost both?
You are certainly being thick headed. I have said Windows is not the dominant OS. I said that Mac OS is a small percentage, and those wanting to run Windows OS on Macs will always be a small percentage. As I said knock yourself out on running Windows on Macs. Apple has never tried to satisfy all users.
That's true. But neither has it ignored and spurned its users and their needs. No successful company does stupid thing like that.
It's the heart of capitalism and its biggest (only?) benefit: If you don't meet customer needs, someone else will.
And that's why Apple has an App Store. And an accessory market. And networks with other devices.
Apple don't need to make everything and be everything to everyone, other companies can make Windows machines and 2-in-1s.
Apple don't need to, and it appears Apple don't want to. And they almost certainly have enough customers that don't care about those things that they'll be more than fine.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Of the 20 million Macs that sell a year, if over 2 million of those ever see bootcamp I would be shocked. Of those at most 2 million yearly that are now without bootcamp, most will just get an HP or Lenovo desktop - one with a recent Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia or AMD GPU can cost as little as $500 so not that big of a deal - to complement their primary Mac device. Of the very few remaining that will actually ditch macOS completely over this, they will be replaced several times over by the new customers that Apple Silicon will attract. So they will sell more Macs and will be able to redeploy the programmers responsible for bootcamp to much better tasks. No downside to this for Apple.
Apple didn't get where it is by caring only and exclusively about sales and profit.
Quite the opposite really....
There is no downside to Apple to enable Windows to run under Bootcamp. None.
Just ideological hubris.
Bull. That means Apple has to spend time and money to enable Windows to work with the hardware. Drivers and stuff must work and Apple would have to do that work. There is no magic, nor is it free for Apple to do so. That is a downside.
LOL... For a company the size of Apple that wouldn't make even a tiniest blip on the P&L. It would get lost in rounding.
Any other excuses?
It is still a downside, not my fault you can’t see it. Your suggestion is for Apple to spend resources on this when it would serve lots more people on on their projects? Could Apple do it? Sure, however Apple is highly unlikely to do so. Waste of resources.
"I can't see it?" No, I can see it - and think its a ridiculous excuse
Some would consider Windows a ridiculous waste on Macs. You can want Apple to support Windows on the Mac, however it is reason, supported by business studies, that Windows is not worth the trouble for Apple to support. Nothing wrong with wishing I guess. Yes I can understand the need, however you can take a dump in one had and wish in another hand, then see what fills up first. It was only a side benefit, that Windows ever ram on Macs. You will turn blue in the face before Apple supports Windows on the Mac as the market is too small, even though it is important to some people. It is better for other vendors to take up that market. Business 101 says not to support Windows on the Mac for Apple. Not an excuse, but valid business reasons.
Sorry, but Windows is and will remain the dominant OS. And, as such, many applications (both custom and retail) will only run on Windows. For those who need or want to run them, Windows is necessary.
Apple recognized that it's ability to meet all needs is limited and created BootCamp because of it. That shows not only respect for their customers and their needs but good business sense.
... Are you suggesting that they have lost both?
You are certainly being thick headed. I have said Windows is not the dominant OS. I said that Mac OS is a small percentage, and those wanting to run Windows OS on Macs will always be a small percentage. As I said knock yourself out on running Windows on Macs. Apple has never tried to satisfy all users.
That's true. But neither has it ignored and spurned its users and their needs. No successful company does stupid thing like that.
It's the heart of capitalism and its biggest (only?) benefit: If you don't meet customer needs, someone else will.
And that's why Apple has an App Store. And an accessory market. And networks with other devices.
Apple don't need to make everything and be everything to everyone, other companies can make Windows machines and 2-in-1s.
Apple don't need to, and it appears Apple don't want to. And they almost certainly have enough customers that don't care about those things that they'll be more than fine.
Hopefully Apple doesn't base their business decisions thinking that they "Have enough customers" so that they no longer have to do the right things.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Of the 20 million Macs that sell a year, if over 2 million of those ever see bootcamp I would be shocked. Of those at most 2 million yearly that are now without bootcamp, most will just get an HP or Lenovo desktop - one with a recent Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia or AMD GPU can cost as little as $500 so not that big of a deal - to complement their primary Mac device. Of the very few remaining that will actually ditch macOS completely over this, they will be replaced several times over by the new customers that Apple Silicon will attract. So they will sell more Macs and will be able to redeploy the programmers responsible for bootcamp to much better tasks. No downside to this for Apple.
Apple didn't get where it is by caring only and exclusively about sales and profit.
Quite the opposite really....
There is no downside to Apple to enable Windows to run under Bootcamp. None.
Just ideological hubris.
Bull. That means Apple has to spend time and money to enable Windows to work with the hardware. Drivers and stuff must work and Apple would have to do that work. There is no magic, nor is it free for Apple to do so. That is a downside.
LOL... For a company the size of Apple that wouldn't make even a tiniest blip on the P&L. It would get lost in rounding.
Any other excuses?
It is still a downside, not my fault you can’t see it. Your suggestion is for Apple to spend resources on this when it would serve lots more people on on their projects? Could Apple do it? Sure, however Apple is highly unlikely to do so. Waste of resources.
"I can't see it?" No, I can see it - and think its a ridiculous excuse
Some would consider Windows a ridiculous waste on Macs. You can want Apple to support Windows on the Mac, however it is reason, supported by business studies, that Windows is not worth the trouble for Apple to support. Nothing wrong with wishing I guess. Yes I can understand the need, however you can take a dump in one had and wish in another hand, then see what fills up first. It was only a side benefit, that Windows ever ram on Macs. You will turn blue in the face before Apple supports Windows on the Mac as the market is too small, even though it is important to some people. It is better for other vendors to take up that market. Business 101 says not to support Windows on the Mac for Apple. Not an excuse, but valid business reasons.
Sorry, but Windows is and will remain the dominant OS. And, as such, many applications (both custom and retail) will only run on Windows. For those who need or want to run them, Windows is necessary.
Apple recognized that it's ability to meet all needs is limited and created BootCamp because of it. That shows not only respect for their customers and their needs but good business sense.
... Are you suggesting that they have lost both?
You are certainly being thick headed. I have said Windows is not the dominant OS. I said that Mac OS is a small percentage, and those wanting to run Windows OS on Macs will always be a small percentage. As I said knock yourself out on running Windows on Macs. Apple has never tried to satisfy all users.
That's true. But neither has it ignored and spurned its users and their needs. No successful company does stupid thing like that.
It's the heart of capitalism and its biggest (only?) benefit: If you don't meet customer needs, someone else will.
And that's why Apple has an App Store. And an accessory market. And networks with other devices.
Apple don't need to make everything and be everything to everyone, other companies can make Windows machines and 2-in-1s.
Apple don't need to, and it appears Apple don't want to. And they almost certainly have enough customers that don't care about those things that they'll be more than fine.
Hopefully Apple doesn't base their business decisions thinking that they "Have enough customers" so that they no longer have to do the right things.
Hopefully Apple doesn't decide that in the quest for ever more customers they have to compromise their product vision to allow features that a lot of customers don't consider "the right things", like running Windows, or a tablet mode for macOS, or an iOS/macOS dual boot.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Of the 20 million Macs that sell a year, if over 2 million of those ever see bootcamp I would be shocked. Of those at most 2 million yearly that are now without bootcamp, most will just get an HP or Lenovo desktop - one with a recent Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia or AMD GPU can cost as little as $500 so not that big of a deal - to complement their primary Mac device. Of the very few remaining that will actually ditch macOS completely over this, they will be replaced several times over by the new customers that Apple Silicon will attract. So they will sell more Macs and will be able to redeploy the programmers responsible for bootcamp to much better tasks. No downside to this for Apple.
Apple didn't get where it is by caring only and exclusively about sales and profit.
Quite the opposite really....
There is no downside to Apple to enable Windows to run under Bootcamp. None.
Just ideological hubris.
Bull. That means Apple has to spend time and money to enable Windows to work with the hardware. Drivers and stuff must work and Apple would have to do that work. There is no magic, nor is it free for Apple to do so. That is a downside.
LOL... For a company the size of Apple that wouldn't make even a tiniest blip on the P&L. It would get lost in rounding.
Any other excuses?
It is still a downside, not my fault you can’t see it. Your suggestion is for Apple to spend resources on this when it would serve lots more people on on their projects? Could Apple do it? Sure, however Apple is highly unlikely to do so. Waste of resources.
"I can't see it?" No, I can see it - and think its a ridiculous excuse
Some would consider Windows a ridiculous waste on Macs. You can want Apple to support Windows on the Mac, however it is reason, supported by business studies, that Windows is not worth the trouble for Apple to support. Nothing wrong with wishing I guess. Yes I can understand the need, however you can take a dump in one had and wish in another hand, then see what fills up first. It was only a side benefit, that Windows ever ram on Macs. You will turn blue in the face before Apple supports Windows on the Mac as the market is too small, even though it is important to some people. It is better for other vendors to take up that market. Business 101 says not to support Windows on the Mac for Apple. Not an excuse, but valid business reasons.
Sorry, but Windows is and will remain the dominant OS. And, as such, many applications (both custom and retail) will only run on Windows. For those who need or want to run them, Windows is necessary.
Apple recognized that it's ability to meet all needs is limited and created BootCamp because of it. That shows not only respect for their customers and their needs but good business sense.
... Are you suggesting that they have lost both?
You are certainly being thick headed. I have said Windows is not the dominant OS. I said that Mac OS is a small percentage, and those wanting to run Windows OS on Macs will always be a small percentage. As I said knock yourself out on running Windows on Macs. Apple has never tried to satisfy all users.
That's true. But neither has it ignored and spurned its users and their needs. No successful company does stupid thing like that.
It's the heart of capitalism and its biggest (only?) benefit: If you don't meet customer needs, someone else will.
And that's why Apple has an App Store. And an accessory market. And networks with other devices.
Apple don't need to make everything and be everything to everyone, other companies can make Windows machines and 2-in-1s.
Apple don't need to, and it appears Apple don't want to. And they almost certainly have enough customers that don't care about those things that they'll be more than fine.
Hopefully Apple doesn't base their business decisions thinking that they "Have enough customers" so that they no longer have to do the right things.
Hopefully Apple doesn't decide that in the quest for ever more customers they have to compromise their product vision to allow features that a lot of customers don't consider "the right things", like running Windows, or a tablet mode for macOS, or an iOS/macOS dual boot.
That's the Microsoft way.
But, to you they're not the "right things" because Apple isn't (yet) doing them.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Of the 20 million Macs that sell a year, if over 2 million of those ever see bootcamp I would be shocked. Of those at most 2 million yearly that are now without bootcamp, most will just get an HP or Lenovo desktop - one with a recent Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia or AMD GPU can cost as little as $500 so not that big of a deal - to complement their primary Mac device. Of the very few remaining that will actually ditch macOS completely over this, they will be replaced several times over by the new customers that Apple Silicon will attract. So they will sell more Macs and will be able to redeploy the programmers responsible for bootcamp to much better tasks. No downside to this for Apple.
Apple didn't get where it is by caring only and exclusively about sales and profit.
Quite the opposite really....
There is no downside to Apple to enable Windows to run under Bootcamp. None.
Just ideological hubris.
Bull. That means Apple has to spend time and money to enable Windows to work with the hardware. Drivers and stuff must work and Apple would have to do that work. There is no magic, nor is it free for Apple to do so. That is a downside.
LOL... For a company the size of Apple that wouldn't make even a tiniest blip on the P&L. It would get lost in rounding.
Any other excuses?
It is still a downside, not my fault you can’t see it. Your suggestion is for Apple to spend resources on this when it would serve lots more people on on their projects? Could Apple do it? Sure, however Apple is highly unlikely to do so. Waste of resources.
"I can't see it?" No, I can see it - and think its a ridiculous excuse
Some would consider Windows a ridiculous waste on Macs. You can want Apple to support Windows on the Mac, however it is reason, supported by business studies, that Windows is not worth the trouble for Apple to support. Nothing wrong with wishing I guess. Yes I can understand the need, however you can take a dump in one had and wish in another hand, then see what fills up first. It was only a side benefit, that Windows ever ram on Macs. You will turn blue in the face before Apple supports Windows on the Mac as the market is too small, even though it is important to some people. It is better for other vendors to take up that market. Business 101 says not to support Windows on the Mac for Apple. Not an excuse, but valid business reasons.
Sorry, but Windows is and will remain the dominant OS. And, as such, many applications (both custom and retail) will only run on Windows. For those who need or want to run them, Windows is necessary.
Apple recognized that it's ability to meet all needs is limited and created BootCamp because of it. That shows not only respect for their customers and their needs but good business sense.
... Are you suggesting that they have lost both?
You are certainly being thick headed. I have said Windows is not the dominant OS. I said that Mac OS is a small percentage, and those wanting to run Windows OS on Macs will always be a small percentage. As I said knock yourself out on running Windows on Macs. Apple has never tried to satisfy all users.
That's true. But neither has it ignored and spurned its users and their needs. No successful company does stupid thing like that.
It's the heart of capitalism and its biggest (only?) benefit: If you don't meet customer needs, someone else will.
And that's why Apple has an App Store. And an accessory market. And networks with other devices.
Apple don't need to make everything and be everything to everyone, other companies can make Windows machines and 2-in-1s.
Apple don't need to, and it appears Apple don't want to. And they almost certainly have enough customers that don't care about those things that they'll be more than fine.
Hopefully Apple doesn't base their business decisions thinking that they "Have enough customers" so that they no longer have to do the right things.
Hopefully Apple doesn't decide that in the quest for ever more customers they have to compromise their product vision to allow features that a lot of customers don't consider "the right things", like running Windows, or a tablet mode for macOS, or an iOS/macOS dual boot.
That's the Microsoft way.
But, to you they're not the "right things" because Apple isn't (yet) doing them.
Circular logic is never wrong...
I'm actually pretty apathetic either way. If Windows could be made to work on an M1 machine, fine. If Apple were to release a 2 in 1, ok. I'm sure Apple would probably make one of the best 2 in 1s around. But that should be their choice to make when they feel like they can deliver something worthwhile, not just keeping up with the joneses and leaving every profit centre unturned.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Of the 20 million Macs that sell a year, if over 2 million of those ever see bootcamp I would be shocked. Of those at most 2 million yearly that are now without bootcamp, most will just get an HP or Lenovo desktop - one with a recent Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia or AMD GPU can cost as little as $500 so not that big of a deal - to complement their primary Mac device. Of the very few remaining that will actually ditch macOS completely over this, they will be replaced several times over by the new customers that Apple Silicon will attract. So they will sell more Macs and will be able to redeploy the programmers responsible for bootcamp to much better tasks. No downside to this for Apple.
Apple didn't get where it is by caring only and exclusively about sales and profit.
Quite the opposite really....
There is no downside to Apple to enable Windows to run under Bootcamp. None.
Just ideological hubris.
Bull. That means Apple has to spend time and money to enable Windows to work with the hardware. Drivers and stuff must work and Apple would have to do that work. There is no magic, nor is it free for Apple to do so. That is a downside.
LOL... For a company the size of Apple that wouldn't make even a tiniest blip on the P&L. It would get lost in rounding.
Any other excuses?
It is still a downside, not my fault you can’t see it. Your suggestion is for Apple to spend resources on this when it would serve lots more people on on their projects? Could Apple do it? Sure, however Apple is highly unlikely to do so. Waste of resources.
"I can't see it?" No, I can see it - and think its a ridiculous excuse
Some would consider Windows a ridiculous waste on Macs. You can want Apple to support Windows on the Mac, however it is reason, supported by business studies, that Windows is not worth the trouble for Apple to support. Nothing wrong with wishing I guess. Yes I can understand the need, however you can take a dump in one had and wish in another hand, then see what fills up first. It was only a side benefit, that Windows ever ram on Macs. You will turn blue in the face before Apple supports Windows on the Mac as the market is too small, even though it is important to some people. It is better for other vendors to take up that market. Business 101 says not to support Windows on the Mac for Apple. Not an excuse, but valid business reasons.
Sorry, but Windows is and will remain the dominant OS. And, as such, many applications (both custom and retail) will only run on Windows. For those who need or want to run them, Windows is necessary.
Apple recognized that it's ability to meet all needs is limited and created BootCamp because of it. That shows not only respect for their customers and their needs but good business sense.
... Are you suggesting that they have lost both?
You are certainly being thick headed. I have said Windows is not the dominant OS. I said that Mac OS is a small percentage, and those wanting to run Windows OS on Macs will always be a small percentage. As I said knock yourself out on running Windows on Macs. Apple has never tried to satisfy all users.
That's true. But neither has it ignored and spurned its users and their needs. No successful company does stupid thing like that.
It's the heart of capitalism and its biggest (only?) benefit: If you don't meet customer needs, someone else will.
And that's why Apple has an App Store. And an accessory market. And networks with other devices.
Apple don't need to make everything and be everything to everyone, other companies can make Windows machines and 2-in-1s.
Apple don't need to, and it appears Apple don't want to. And they almost certainly have enough customers that don't care about those things that they'll be more than fine.
Hopefully Apple doesn't base their business decisions thinking that they "Have enough customers" so that they no longer have to do the right things.
Hopefully Apple doesn't decide that in the quest for ever more customers they have to compromise their product vision to allow features that a lot of customers don't consider "the right things", like running Windows, or a tablet mode for macOS, or an iOS/macOS dual boot.
That's the Microsoft way.
But, to you they're not the "right things" because Apple isn't (yet) doing them.
Circular logic is never wrong...
I'm actually pretty apathetic either way. If Windows could be made to work on an M1 machine, fine. If Apple were to release a 2 in 1, ok. I'm sure Apple would probably make one of the best 2 in 1s around. But that should be their choice to make when they feel like they can deliver something worthwhile, not just keeping up with the joneses and leaving every profit centre unturned.
As I see it, 2 in 1's are more than "keeping up with the Jones's" and instead "keeping up with technology". And, as apps, led by custom apps for schools and businesses, it will increasingly become a requirement.
As I have said previously, my 8th grade grandson needed one to do his school work.
And, yesterday, I saw my physical therapist charting on her laptop using a pencil instead of a keyboard.
In short, I don't see going to a 2 in 1 as a marketing decision or even an optional one. They are becoming requirements. And I see Apple dragging their feet -- which, because I respect the company so much, I find both bothersome and frustrating because it is detrimental to both the company and its customers as people are forced out of the Apple ecosystem to be able to do their jobs.
Many of us bought Macs with the intent of also using them to run Windows. I am one of them, and know many that can't divorce Windows entirely. That Macs could run Windows was key for me buying my first Mac back in 2008. I even bought a new 2020 iMac knowing this will most likely be my last Intel machine, and can run Windows for many years to come until both ASi Macs, and maybe even Windows ARM will have been fully baked when I'm ready to get another new Mac.
Of the 20 million Macs that sell a year, if over 2 million of those ever see bootcamp I would be shocked. Of those at most 2 million yearly that are now without bootcamp, most will just get an HP or Lenovo desktop - one with a recent Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia or AMD GPU can cost as little as $500 so not that big of a deal - to complement their primary Mac device. Of the very few remaining that will actually ditch macOS completely over this, they will be replaced several times over by the new customers that Apple Silicon will attract. So they will sell more Macs and will be able to redeploy the programmers responsible for bootcamp to much better tasks. No downside to this for Apple.
Apple didn't get where it is by caring only and exclusively about sales and profit.
Quite the opposite really....
There is no downside to Apple to enable Windows to run under Bootcamp. None.
Just ideological hubris.
Bull. That means Apple has to spend time and money to enable Windows to work with the hardware. Drivers and stuff must work and Apple would have to do that work. There is no magic, nor is it free for Apple to do so. That is a downside.
LOL... For a company the size of Apple that wouldn't make even a tiniest blip on the P&L. It would get lost in rounding.
Any other excuses?
It is still a downside, not my fault you can’t see it. Your suggestion is for Apple to spend resources on this when it would serve lots more people on on their projects? Could Apple do it? Sure, however Apple is highly unlikely to do so. Waste of resources.
"I can't see it?" No, I can see it - and think its a ridiculous excuse
Some would consider Windows a ridiculous waste on Macs. You can want Apple to support Windows on the Mac, however it is reason, supported by business studies, that Windows is not worth the trouble for Apple to support. Nothing wrong with wishing I guess. Yes I can understand the need, however you can take a dump in one had and wish in another hand, then see what fills up first. It was only a side benefit, that Windows ever ram on Macs. You will turn blue in the face before Apple supports Windows on the Mac as the market is too small, even though it is important to some people. It is better for other vendors to take up that market. Business 101 says not to support Windows on the Mac for Apple. Not an excuse, but valid business reasons.
Sorry, but Windows is and will remain the dominant OS. And, as such, many applications (both custom and retail) will only run on Windows. For those who need or want to run them, Windows is necessary.
Apple recognized that it's ability to meet all needs is limited and created BootCamp because of it. That shows not only respect for their customers and their needs but good business sense.
... Are you suggesting that they have lost both?
You are certainly being thick headed. I have said Windows is not the dominant OS. I said that Mac OS is a small percentage, and those wanting to run Windows OS on Macs will always be a small percentage. As I said knock yourself out on running Windows on Macs. Apple has never tried to satisfy all users.
That's true. But neither has it ignored and spurned its users and their needs. No successful company does stupid thing like that.
It's the heart of capitalism and its biggest (only?) benefit: If you don't meet customer needs, someone else will.
And that's why Apple has an App Store. And an accessory market. And networks with other devices.
Apple don't need to make everything and be everything to everyone, other companies can make Windows machines and 2-in-1s.
Apple don't need to, and it appears Apple don't want to. And they almost certainly have enough customers that don't care about those things that they'll be more than fine.
Hopefully Apple doesn't base their business decisions thinking that they "Have enough customers" so that they no longer have to do the right things.
Hopefully Apple doesn't decide that in the quest for ever more customers they have to compromise their product vision to allow features that a lot of customers don't consider "the right things", like running Windows, or a tablet mode for macOS, or an iOS/macOS dual boot.
That's the Microsoft way.
But, to you they're not the "right things" because Apple isn't (yet) doing them.
Circular logic is never wrong...
I'm actually pretty apathetic either way. If Windows could be made to work on an M1 machine, fine. If Apple were to release a 2 in 1, ok. I'm sure Apple would probably make one of the best 2 in 1s around. But that should be their choice to make when they feel like they can deliver something worthwhile, not just keeping up with the joneses and leaving every profit centre unturned.
As I see it, 2 in 1's are more than "keeping up with the Jones's" and instead "keeping up with technology". And, as apps, led by custom apps for schools and businesses, it will increasingly become a requirement.
As I have said previously, my 8th grade grandson needed one to do his school work.
And, yesterday, I saw my physical therapist charting on her laptop using a pencil instead of a keyboard.
In short, I don't see going to a 2 in 1 as a marketing decision or even an optional one. They are becoming requirements. And I see Apple dragging their feet -- which, because I respect the company so much, I find both bothersome and frustrating because it is detrimental to both the company and its customers as people are forced out of the Apple ecosystem to be able to do their jobs.
Just because Windows is a requirement for you, doesn’t mean it is a requirement for Apple or other users. Windows is not a requirement for me or many others.
Some would consider Windows a ridiculous waste on Macs. You can want Apple to support Windows on the Mac, however it is reason, supported by business studies, that Windows is not worth the trouble for Apple to support. ... Business 101 says not to support Windows on the Mac for Apple. Not an excuse, but valid business reasons.
Business 101, really? LOL. They aren't supporting it because the chips don't run it. But, I'm not sure I'd bet they won't do something related to Windows at some point.
A lot of Mac users still need Windows in various ways. Now, there are a bunch of potential solutions to that. It's fairly irrelevant to debate which system is 'worth the trouble.' If you need it, you need. I need to run Autodesk Revit. There (currently) is no other solution for doing so, no matter how much better a Mac is than a Windows machine. It's also quite nice to just run it in a Windows along side my Mac apps (which is why I use Parallels, even though there is a performance hit).
Running two separate machines, especially for some workflows, is a big pain. But, that's what we'll do if we have to. Hopefully someone (including Apple) will come up with something a bit more elegant. How about a x86 card in a Mac Pro? How about a little 'dongle' that lets the Mac keyboard, mouse, trackpad control the Windows box while routing the video into a window on the MacOS? How about if/when Windows does run (and is used more widely) on ARM? Lots of things can and will change over the next few years.
But, trying to say it makes no business sense to run Windows on a Mac is just plain silly. The question is whether it is important enough to them to expend the effort. None of us knows the answer to that. (BTW, I was around Macs long before there even was Windows, and let me tell you that when the Mac went Intel, running Windows was a lot more important than an afterthought.)
GeorgeBMac said: Could it be that, with all the hacks by government and private entities that security will start driving things just as user friendliness and functional UI's drove it in the past?
Klaus over at the WEF says a cyber-attack is our next big threat, and will make this pandemic look like child's play. And, since they've been practicing for such an event, I'm sure we'll see it coming along right at the crucial moment. Maybe only Macs and Win 11 will survive? That could change the software landscape a bit, just like the pandemic magically made work from home suddenly possible.
crowley said: And they almost certainly have enough customers that don't care about those things that they'll be more than fine.
Yep, and that's the thing that always scares me about Apple (or most any company). They've probably figured out that they can just cater to simplistic needs and sell more units than trying to satisfy the more needy user. Short-term, that works really well. Fortunately, it seems Apple still does care about the pro users, too. Whether they do so for the right reasons, we can only guess. But, there seems to be renewed interest in recent years. It would be a bit odd, if they then suddenly said, nah, we've decided we don't care about the pros again since we created the M-series.
crowley said: Hopefully Apple doesn't decide that in the quest for ever more customers they have to compromise their product vision to allow features that a lot of customers don't consider "the right things", like running Windows, or a tablet mode for macOS, or an iOS/macOS dual boot.
That's the Microsoft way.
Why would it be compromising their product vision?
Fidonet127 said: Just because Windows is a requirement for you, doesn’t mean it is a requirement for Apple or other users. Windows is not a requirement for me or many others.
It's a requirement for plenty enough to justify a solution. Even if Apple performs with the M-series beyond our wildest dreams, it will still be many years before the software industry catches up. Until then, Windows will dominate in many key areas.
crowley said: Hopefully Apple doesn't decide that in the quest for ever more customers they have to compromise their product vision to allow features that a lot of customers don't consider "the right things", like running Windows, or a tablet mode for macOS, or an iOS/macOS dual boot.
That's the Microsoft way.
Why would it be compromising their product vision?
I'm speaking in the abstract, not about anything in particular. Obviously I have no insight into what Apple's vision for each of its products are, I can only speculate. Maybe it includes 2-in-1s and dual booting Windows, but I doubt it.
crowley said: I'm speaking in the abstract, not about anything in particular. Obviously I have no insight into what Apple's vision for each of its products are, I can only speculate. Maybe it includes 2-in-1s and dual booting Windows, but I doubt it.
The more I hear, the more I think you might be right in the sense that they are just going to say, 'bye bye' to the past and forge forward. But, I guess I don't see what a company the scale of Apple can't do both. Maybe they'll keep Intel Mac mini and Mac Pro units on the order system as part of the 'do both' but won't put any other resources into that. I just think that's going to make it hard on a sizable chunk of their pro user base.
Hmmm. I run Windows on my Mac because its the ONLY platform where I can simultaneously have harmony between UNIX/LINUX; Windows; and the Apple OS (thank you Parallels!). Additionally - having "Microsoft Office 365" running on the Macintosh OS is FAR SUPERIOR to the Windows OS because you don't get "unsupported" popups when you try to embed Postscript/EPS graphics into your content. Not trying to sound snarky - but let's not forget that Apple and Adobe created the original "desktop publishing" environment - not Windows. Likewise - I concur with the earlier comments that "if you MUST run Windows then you MUST run Windows." Now, let's extend that to: "If you MUST run LINUX you must run LINUX."
But enough speculation on "what will be and what will come:" The overarching question is: WHY is Microsoft REQUIRING TPM in the first place??? I work in a large IT organization and it is indeed vital from a corporate security perspective -- especially on its mobile platforms.
But it's MERE FOLLY to believe that TPM is worth-its-weight in ANYTHING from a consumer standpoint. Unless you have intellectual or 3rd party privacy information to protect - it will be LAUGHABLE to watch us consumers trying to find our TPM key to unlock our computer when-ever we've updated something that triggers a TPM lock-down. IMHO, the complications that TPM causes rank right-up-there with "denial of service" and "ransomeware!"
Believe what you want to believe - but IMHO it's just one more way that Microsoft thinks that they can regulate outcomes (i.e., they are steering themselves towards a corporate environment and forcing everyone else to tag along)! Once when I called Microsoft complaining about: "how come I am getting a licensing challenge when running Parallels Windows10 on the same hardware as native Windows10" -- the Microsoft agent said: "Hey: how can you say that you're running Windows 'natively' on Macintosh hardware???" Duh! Tilt! I asked the gentleman: "Please recommend a Microsoft Intel Motherboard that will work better!?"
In summary - NO operating system does everything under the sun - and I admit that I'm probably trying to milk my old hardware too long. Heck - 40-years ago (showing my age) you had to buy new hardware every 3-years REGARDLESS due to obsolescence in either speed or software robustness. BUT a TPM requirement is equivalent to saying we must buy Flood, "LifeLock," or "Bitcoin" insurance! Where's the kickback?
Just tried CrossOver on my M1, then realized some apps, despite being able to run, are pretty broken. Having Parallel with Windows is also a safe guarantee.
So, can't settle my older Air just yet, I know it's 8210Y...
Good luck updating it. There will be helper utilities available from third parties to get Windows 11 installed on "incompatible" computers but updating it will require a reinstall. That's already true for Windows installs on external drives.
Please explain that last bit. I have run Windows 10 on externals for years and they update just fine. I have a 27" iMac i9 with the upgraded GPU, 64 GB RAM and I can boot directly into Windows 10 Pro, fully licensed, and run Steam all games at 4K from 30 to 60 fps depending on settings. I agree I can't update to Windows 11 yet but so far I don't have a good reason as everything works great. I run Microsoft Flight Simulator, RDR2, GTAV and many many more just as well as I can on my Dell i7 PC tower with a GTX 1080 on a 4K monitor. I use a PC mouse and keyboard when running Windows on my Mac and don't have any Bootcamp drivers installed as I don't need them.
Just tried CrossOver on my M1, then realized some apps, despite being able to run, are pretty broken. Having Parallel with Windows is also a safe guarantee.
So, can't settle my older Air just yet, I know it's 8210Y...
I've tried Crossover every few years since it first came out decades ago. I just tried this iteration too, and every time I launched Steam GTAV it created a new bottle and downloaded Rockstar Player again, I had seven of them before I gave up and deleted everything. Parallels is OK for non gaming but pretty lame at games unless you want to play at 1080p. I don't, I want 4K. Honestly, Crossover has always felt broken, and a work in progress to me. For the cost of two years subscription I honestly think it would be better to buy a new NUC, or one of those Chinese mini PCs.
Good luck updating it. There will be helper utilities available from third parties to get Windows 11 installed on "incompatible" computers but updating it will require a reinstall. That's already true for Windows installs on external drives.
Please explain that last bit. I have run Windows 10 on externals for years and they update just fine. I have a 27" iMac i9 with the upgraded GPU, 64 GB RAM and I can boot directly into Windows 10 Pro, fully licensed, and run Steam all games at 4K from 30 to 60 fps depending on settings. I agree I can't update to Windows 11 yet but so far I don't have a good reason as everything works great. I run Microsoft Flight Simulator, RDR2, GTAV and many many more just as well as I can on my Dell i7 PC tower with a GTX 1080 on a 4K monitor. I use a PC mouse and keyboard when running Windows on my Mac and don't have any Bootcamp drivers installed as I don't need them.
Yeah, maybe that was a bit of a misstatement. I also have Win10 running on an external SSD. You have to jump a few hoops to get it on there (as it isn't supported by BootCamp setup), but once it is running, it updates just fine (I'm purposely NOT updating mine, as it was a total nightmare getting it going and updates tend to break it). But, that's because of my eGPU. If I don't care about the eGPU, it is quite easy to do with a utility (I think I used Rufus) and updates fine.
Comments
Apple don't need to make everything and be everything to everyone, other companies can make Windows machines and 2-in-1s.
Apple don't need to, and it appears Apple don't want to. And they almost certainly have enough customers that don't care about those things that they'll be more than fine.
That's the Microsoft way.
A lot of Mac users still need Windows in various ways. Now, there are a bunch of potential solutions to that. It's fairly irrelevant to debate which system is 'worth the trouble.' If you need it, you need. I need to run Autodesk Revit. There (currently) is no other solution for doing so, no matter how much better a Mac is than a Windows machine. It's also quite nice to just run it in a Windows along side my Mac apps (which is why I use Parallels, even though there is a performance hit).
Running two separate machines, especially for some workflows, is a big pain. But, that's what we'll do if we have to. Hopefully someone (including Apple) will come up with something a bit more elegant. How about a x86 card in a Mac Pro? How about a little 'dongle' that lets the Mac keyboard, mouse, trackpad control the Windows box while routing the video into a window on the MacOS? How about if/when Windows does run (and is used more widely) on ARM? Lots of things can and will change over the next few years.
But, trying to say it makes no business sense to run Windows on a Mac is just plain silly. The question is whether it is important enough to them to expend the effort. None of us knows the answer to that. (BTW, I was around Macs long before there even was Windows, and let me tell you that when the Mac went Intel, running Windows was a lot more important than an afterthought.)
Klaus over at the WEF says a cyber-attack is our next big threat, and will make this pandemic look like child's play. And, since they've been practicing for such an event, I'm sure we'll see it coming along right at the crucial moment. Maybe only Macs and Win 11 will survive? That could change the software landscape a bit, just like the pandemic magically made work from home suddenly possible.
Yep, and that's the thing that always scares me about Apple (or most any company). They've probably figured out that they can just cater to simplistic needs and sell more units than trying to satisfy the more needy user. Short-term, that works really well. Fortunately, it seems Apple still does care about the pro users, too. Whether they do so for the right reasons, we can only guess. But, there seems to be renewed interest in recent years. It would be a bit odd, if they then suddenly said, nah, we've decided we don't care about the pros again since we created the M-series.
Why would it be compromising their product vision?
It's a requirement for plenty enough to justify a solution. Even if Apple performs with the M-series beyond our wildest dreams, it will still be many years before the software industry catches up. Until then, Windows will dominate in many key areas.
But, I guess I don't see what a company the scale of Apple can't do both. Maybe they'll keep Intel Mac mini and Mac Pro units on the order system as part of the 'do both' but won't put any other resources into that. I just think that's going to make it hard on a sizable chunk of their pro user base.
But enough speculation on "what will be and what will come:" The overarching question is: WHY is Microsoft REQUIRING TPM in the first place??? I work in a large IT organization and it is indeed vital from a corporate security perspective -- especially on its mobile platforms.
But it's MERE FOLLY to believe that TPM is worth-its-weight in ANYTHING from a consumer standpoint. Unless you have intellectual or 3rd party privacy information to protect - it will be LAUGHABLE to watch us consumers trying to find our TPM key to unlock our computer when-ever we've updated something that triggers a TPM lock-down. IMHO, the complications that TPM causes rank right-up-there with "denial of service" and "ransomeware!"
Believe what you want to believe - but IMHO it's just one more way that Microsoft thinks that they can regulate outcomes (i.e., they are steering themselves towards a corporate environment and forcing everyone else to tag along)! Once when I called Microsoft complaining about: "how come I am getting a licensing challenge when running Parallels Windows10 on the same hardware as native Windows10" -- the Microsoft agent said: "Hey: how can you say that you're running Windows 'natively' on Macintosh hardware???" Duh! Tilt! I asked the gentleman: "Please recommend a Microsoft Intel Motherboard that will work better!?"
In summary - NO operating system does everything under the sun - and I admit that I'm probably trying to milk my old hardware too long. Heck - 40-years ago (showing my age) you had to buy new hardware every 3-years REGARDLESS due to obsolescence in either speed or software robustness. BUT a TPM requirement is equivalent to saying we must buy Flood, "LifeLock," or "Bitcoin" insurance! Where's the kickback?
So, can't settle my older Air just yet, I know it's 8210Y...