I think we will probably see an ARM version of Windows. It is in Microsofts interests to see higher uptake of ARM too. If not, I guess RAS solutions will get a boost.
There is already an ARM version of Windows, the problem is getting developers to recompile their apps to run on it.
My guess is that Microsoft will start offering some pretty wild incentives to get developers to recompile to their stuff for ARM.
Ok, I don’t get it. I watched the keynote and could have sworn that I saw Parallels Desktop being run on their ARM Mac to show Linux running...or did I imagine that?
That was a beta version of Parallels recompiled for Apple Silicon, runnning an ARM-based version of Linux.
Microsoft was smart to embrace the Linux community and is adding the base run-time to Windows allowing for a more seamless communication and leveraging the benefits of Linux inside Windows.
Disappointing but predictable. Given the ubiquity of “cloud” or platform agnostic apps - maybe not a big deal.
Still, I see a big impact on development for Microsoft Office AddIns that were previously cross-platform. Not to mention the AI accelerators just now being natively integrated in Excel. I don’t see how that gets ported to Apples hardware.
Native apps are still a huge and important market. Some things just cannot be ported to a web interface economically or with appropriate security (see: Autodesk and every other engineering design platform)
As massive and powerful as Apple is - it simply cannot compete with the wintel software world and that has always been its achilles heal. The only exception being Adobe.
Name me these industry standard applications that are platform agnostic. I'm looking forward to these Digital Audio Workstation platforms that just run on any OS and perform at the same level as native applications for the consumer.
Hell, even when we had hundreds of networked systems at NeXT or Apple running globally and all NeXT or Cocoa apps at Apple custom made for internal use only stored in some /LocalApps, /SharedApps, as one copy it was because the dynamic runtime was the same used across all these applications for NeXTSTEP/OS X and we launched them locally into RAM to run that x86, m68, HP-PA RISC, SPARC native executable which had the full accompanied set of frameworks and runtimes necessary to do so on every copy of NeXTSTEP.
Later we created bundles for people to use separate that required all customized frameworks separate from that ubiquitous set [or so we called them as it was the same on NeXTSTEP] as the app wrapper was a series of folders with all custom frameworks and their versioning dynamically messaging against the same base frameworks all OS X systems received, out of the box.
The amount of good stuff that got ripped out of unreleased copies of OpenStep/NeXTSTEP to appease the old Mac devs that later because OS X like all the advanced network featured applications, to system-wide custom tools, never mind the hundreds of in-house apps we used daily that not one became a third party application still has me wonder why people never questioned Steve's vision but don't shut up about Tim's vision.
I'll never forget the day he returned as iCEO and begged everyone at NeXT to stay and talked about how Apple was going to become an Enterprise Player with 32 core server systems, blah, blah, blah. One month later it was all iMac.
Tim has a longer term vision strategy approach because he can now that the company has maximized Steve's visions. If people think this new vision is going to change the computer industry they don't realize that Apple has no plans for it to do just that. They won't be the Intel and Microsoft of Computing in One. They will do what they've always done and that is maximize profit potentials in a few select markets while slowly investing in several others until about year five it becomes clear it's not longer a small market but a big market and keep adding to their overall stock pile of cash, slowly talking about Medical will be the biggest legacy, yet so far in the past five Apple Watches it appears they have a long way to go before anything new will arrive.
And it won't be because of Apple Silicon. It will have to come from redesigning the entire US Health Care Industry for that to happen. And that won't happen without Congress, thus the heavy federal lobbying on both sides of the aisle to get little victories from time to time.
Everything that Apple adds to these Processors will also be in AMD and Intel based products within the next three to five years, and at levels that impact HPC, Data Centers, etc backends on a global scale. Apple Silicon isn't promoting ARM, it's just leveraging ARM to promote vector based processing from in-house designs. They aren't doing anything that AMD and Intel, not to mention Nvidia and others are currently all developing.
That's not what will grow Apple's footprint. Useful and ubiquitous service Original Content productions will raise them above their competition. That means News+ AppleTV+, Music, HomeKit and its future vision(s), Electric Vehicle technologies and/or actual vehicles, etc.
Developing a future Solar Cell panel that more closely mimics Photosynthesis thanks to the many areas of chemistry Apple has investments in would be a big future growth play. Developing Power Distribution systems would be an even bigger play. Your corporation can be all renewable but being able to develop affordable and scalable renewable solutions would be monstrous.
Killing your platform for a few years while expecting Intel based systems to address Professional Market demands is something they should be straight up front about.
Since you have a deep institutional knowledge of Apple, what type of customer do you think these Apple Silicon Macs are aimed at?
At some point in the 90s, he shared an elevator with Steve Jobs. That does not qualify as deep institutional knowledge of what Apple is all about today.
If Apple were to fully sanction the running of macOS virtual machines in VMWare Workstation or Player (rather than artificially blocking them so they can only run in VMWare Fusion)
...
I hate to say it, but if I could run macOS VMs on a Windows box I'd probably be buying a beefy new Windows machine this year.
I’m not sure that everyone understands the difference between virtualization and emulation. It was never likely that x86 virtualization software would run on ARM Macs even with Rosetta. But it is a virtual certainty that Windows emulators will be available. They won’t be as good as a virtual machine but they will probably suffice more most needs.
Parallels and VMWare have a lot of time to figure this out over the next two years.
What is there to figure out?
It won't work.
The only reason there's no huge slowdown with Rosetta is that it's actually translating the code at install time, not runtime. It's going to be slow as dirt doing real time emulation.
Remember SoftPC? Sure, you could get most Windoze software to sort of run. But it was S L O W. Welcome to 1987.
The Mac's best days are behind it now. And I'm not coming along for the ride, I'm done. I'll still work on the ARM Macs for clients, but I will never own one. And I'm going to be brushing up on my Linux and Windoze support skills, looks like I'm going to need it.
Disappointing. Mac on intel was the greatest dev machine ever invented. I have recommended Macs based primarily on this feature itself in my software development classes, for years. Looks like those days are over. ☹️
ARM is literally now in billions of devices already. We have Raspberry Pi with AMD which costs ONLY $100. A lot of operating systems are being ported to ARM. Even Ubuntu is now ported to ARM. Windows is already ported to ARM. x86 has literally run out of all its juice while ARM has plenty of room for decades to come. In just a decade, x86 will be "dead" because it just won't be able to compete against ARM anymore.
We need to stop clinging to legacy hardware and move forward to the future.
Indeed.
Remember when Jobs first returned to the helm, what did he say: "Microsoft doesn't have to lose for us to win."
Apple was smart enough to realise that they couldn't beat Microsoft, so they set about creating new markets for themselves. They've dropped ADB, serial ports, parallel ports, Rosetta, the Newton, support for 32-bit apps. We're going to lose force-touch on the phone.
Each time something transitions they sit down in a room and ask:
What will it cost us? What will we gain?
They know they're going to lose people who are unable or unwilling to move with them, and once again they've decided the tradeoff is more than worth it. They've got hundreds of thousands of apps that can now be brought to the Mac. They've secured the two biggest reasons why people run Windows (MS Office and Adobe Suite) and they've got Docker and Linux running; that covers the vast majority of web applications in use today. I'd say that will cover about 95% of their current customers. You'll always have outliers who refuse to adapt, but I certainly wouldn't hold the platform back to keep them happy. I'd just say 'goodbye and good luck.'
It's still possible that someone will come up with an emulator that can run Windows apps, but since it will be going through a hell of a lot of translation layers, I don't think it'll work that great.
Another possibility is that a company comes up with a X86 processor in a box that plugs into the Thunderbolt port. I don't think it'll be Apple though.
I’m not sure that everyone understands the difference between virtualization and emulation. It was never likely that x86 virtualization software would run on ARM Macs even with Rosetta. But it is a virtual certainty that Windows emulators will be available. They won’t be as good as a virtual machine but they will probably suffice more most needs.
Parallels and VMWare have a lot of time to figure this out over the next two years.
What is there to figure out?
It won't work.
The only reason there's no huge slowdown with Rosetta is that it's actually translating the code at install time, not runtime. It's going to be slow as dirt doing real time emulation.
Remember SoftPC? Sure, you could get most Windoze software to sort of run. But it was S L O W. Welcome to 1987.
The Mac's best days are behind it now. And I'm not coming along for the ride, I'm done. I'll still work on the ARM Macs for clients, but I will never own one. And I'm going to be brushing up on my Linux and Windoze support skills, looks like I'm going to need it.
Apple just killed Macintosh.
Yeah, I said the same thing when they switched to Intel.
With Apple's total rejection of NVIDIA, Mac developers have log ago transitioned to using screen sharing apps like Microsoft Remote Desktop to get their work done on an external PC. It's sad that Apple is in effect putting Parallels out of business. Perhaps Apple can work with Microsoft to get Windows to support Rosetta 2. Microsoft is in the same boat as Apple right now. Intel processors are barely moving forwards in performance. ARM has caught up with them and use far less power. GPUs continue to show massive performance increases generation to generation.
VM’s in the Cloud=the future as mentioned before. No need to carry your workstation around the globe. Just sit down relax and enjoy your VM’s from your virtual office and connect to your business partners without moving and without traveling.
Well, I'm pretty sad to see this. Unless Apple changes its mind or there's some incredibly fast emulation software, when my 2019 iMac conks it, it will be the end of 25 years of Apple for me. I'm not buying two computers just to use x86 Windows at more than a snail's pace.
Back in the days of yore, Macs being able to run Windows was a boon for switchers and removed a lot of apprehension as they could keep running Windows if they didn't like macOS. I used to run a Mac network at a school, and we used to use Windows in a VM for plenty of education programs that had no Mac equivalent, if we couldn't do that we likely wouldn't have had anywhere near as many Macs - as we'd need PCs to run essential software. Apple is hammering the Mac into a smaller and smaller niche, unfortunately. Speed is irrelevant if it won't run the programs you need.
I can’t think of any student facing edu software today that doesn’t run in the cloud.
As I mentioned prior to WWDC, if Apple were to fully sanction the running of macOS virtual machines in VMWare Workstation or Player (rather than artificially blocking them so they can only run in VMWare Fusion) they could certainly beat down some of the bellyaching about the lack of virtualization support in Apple Silicon Macs. This would allow developers to still develop in XCode in a macOS VM on a Windows box in addition to still running Mac apps.
I hate to say it, but if I could run macOS VMs on a Windows box I'd probably be buying a beefy new Windows machine this year. The Apple Silicon Mac transition is going to take a few years to get all of the kinks ironed out, like virtualization. Yes, Apple is going to be releasing new Intel Macs over the next coupe of years. The problem is that Apple does not support older machines with OS updates nearly as long as Microsoft does. I still have 2005 era PCs that run Windows 10 fine because I maxed out the hardware when I bought it. I now have a maxed out late-2012 iMac 27" that absolutely kicks the sh** out of my 2014 Mac mini, but with Big Sur Apple pulled the plug on the iMac and kept it on the mini. Go figure.
BTW, I've been able to drastically improve the dog-slow 2014 HDD-only Mac mini tremendously without disemboweling the mini at all using this very cool kit (https://www.amazon.com/Sintech-NGFF-NVMe-Upgrade-A1347/dp/B07Q5FBNVG/ref=sr_1_8?dchild=1&keywords=mac+mini+ssd&qid=1593009709&sr=8-8) and installing a 500 GB Samsung 970 EVO. I left the HDD in place and turned it all into a single Fusion drive using Apple's very slick fusion creation command line utility. It's still not close to my older iMac in overall performance because the iMac has 32 GB RAM, more cores, i7 vs i5, discrete graphics, and faster CPU but it's no longer tortuous to use (primarily as a home theatre computer) as it was in HDD-only configuration.
So yeah, I'm grateful to get 8 years of macOS upgrades for my big iMac but Microsoft's try-it-at-your-own-risk model is much more open ended. I'm not sure why Apple dropped the late 2012 iMac from Big Sur, as I'm sure everyone who got booted from Big Sur feels, but I'm more puzzled about why my now-somewhat-less-pathetic 2014 Mac mini made the cut. So from a developer-machine perspective I currently don't have a beefy Mac to develop for Big Sur and use XCode 12.
To stay current during the Apple Silicon Mac (ASM) transition I guess I'll just have to suck it up and buy whatever new iMac Apple rolls out next, which is likely to be Intel based, or get a super-stuffed newest Mac mini and a couple of 4K monitors. Sure, this is a one-percenter problem, just like the virtualization question, but it does further illustrate that the ASM transition is a serious cheese-move by Apple and we'll all have to strap ourselves in for the ride and expect a little turbulence along the way.
I have a Thinkpad T60P from 2007. I'm planning on sticking an SSD in and upgrading it to Windows 10 from 8.1 -- but otherwise it runs quite well. It's only limitation seems to be that its 32 bit bus only supports 3Gb of memory -- so I mostly run single threaded stuff on it -- Quicken with FireFox is as complex as it gets -- and all that I need.
Yes, say what you will about Microsoft, but they do support older hardware well.
Disappointing. Mac on intel was the greatest dev machine ever invented. I have recommended Macs based primarily on this feature itself in my software development classes, for years. Looks like those days are over. ☹️
ARM is literally now in billions of devices already. We have Raspberry Pi with AMD which costs ONLY $100. A lot of operating systems are being ported to ARM. Even Ubuntu is now ported to ARM. Windows is already ported to ARM. x86 has literally run out of all its juice while ARM has plenty of room for decades to come. In just a decade, x86 will be "dead" because it just won't be able to compete against ARM anymore.
We need to stop clinging to legacy hardware and move forward to the future.
Indeed.
Remember when Jobs first returned to the helm, what did he say: "Microsoft doesn't have to lose for us to win."
Apple was smart enough to realise that they couldn't beat Microsoft, so they set about creating new markets for themselves. They've dropped ADB, serial ports, parallel ports, Rosetta, the Newton, support for 32-bit apps. We're going to lose force-touch on the phone.
Each time something transitions they sit down in a room and ask:
What will it cost us? What will we gain?
They know they're going to lose people who are unable or unwilling to move with them, and once again they've decided the tradeoff is more than worth it. They've got hundreds of thousands of apps that can now be brought to the Mac. They've secured the two biggest reasons why people run Windows (MS Office and Adobe Suite) and they've got Docker and Linux running; that covers the vast majority of web applications in use today. I'd say that will cover about 95% of their current customers. You'll always have outliers who refuse to adapt, but I certainly wouldn't hold the platform back to keep them happy. I'd just say 'goodbye and good luck.'
It's still possible that someone will come up with an emulator that can run Windows apps, but since it will be going through a hell of a lot of translation layers, I don't think it'll work that great.
Another possibility is that a company comes up with a X86 processor in a box that plugs into the Thunderbolt port. I don't think it'll be Apple though.
But, less tangible but equally impactful is general buyer trepidation: Why lock yourself into a stand-alone system? What do you gain by taking the risk that next year it won't do what you need it to do? With BootCamp you were covered. It might be inconvenient to reboot -- but the worst case scenarios were covered.
But, it is inarguable that Apple thought this through very thoroughly. We can only speculate at their conclusions -- and plans.
The Mac's best days are behind it now. And I'm not coming along for the ride, I'm done. I'll still work on the ARM Macs for clients, but I will never own one. And I'm going to be brushing up on my Linux and Windoze support skills, looks like I'm going to need it.
Apple just killed Macintosh.
Yeah, I said the same thing when they switched to Intel.
Anyway, byeeeee!! 👋🏾
I didn't. I was exceedingly annoyed by how quickly support for PowerPC Macs got dropped, especially considering the quad-core water cooled G5 that was on my desk. That was a serious beast of a machine, and despite Steve's claims otherwise it was faster than the first Intel Macs by quite a bit. But being stuck on 10.5 quickly became a problem.
Overall though, that switch mostly made sense. The Pentium chips of the day were absolute garbage, but the new Core series were much better.
What was an absolute smack in the face was 10.7, with Rosetta being gone along with my beloved scroll arrows. At least I've still got a few G5s, sometimes legacy software is better than the "upgrade" and sometimes there simply is no upgrade.
The inexcusable dropping of 32 bit software has been an absolute nightmare, particularly since as with 10.7 many users were hit with it with absolutely insufficient warning. I've made a decent chunk of money upgrading users from 10.15 to 10.14 since it's not a simple upgrade.
Yes, it's not only possible to run 32 bit software on Windoze 10 without any problem, it's still possible to run 16 bit software - literally decades of backward compatibility. Apple could easily still support as far back as the Classic environment, but instead they intentionally and maliciously broke software from just a few years ago. It's inexcusable.
And now they're going to do it again. Screw it, I'm f***ing done.
I’m not sure that everyone understands the difference between virtualization and emulation. It was never likely that x86 virtualization software would run on ARM Macs even with Rosetta. But it is a virtual certainty that Windows emulators will be available. They won’t be as good as a virtual machine but they will probably suffice more most needs.
Parallels and VMWare have a lot of time to figure this out over the next two years.
What is there to figure out?
It won't work.
The only reason there's no huge slowdown with Rosetta is that it's actually translating the code at install time, not runtime. It's going to be slow as dirt doing real time emulation.
Remember SoftPC? Sure, you could get most Windoze software to sort of run. But it was S L O W. Welcome to 1987.
The Mac's best days are behind it now. And I'm not coming along for the ride, I'm done. I'll still work on the ARM Macs for clients, but I will never own one. And I'm going to be brushing up on my Linux and Windoze support skills, looks like I'm going to need it.
Apple just killed Macintosh.
SoftPC and Connectix VirtualPC were around 20 years ago. Microsoft bought the Connectix one and turned it into virtualization software for Windows:
Hardware has changed a lot since then, over 100x faster. Emulation will still be slower than native, usually 5x-10x slower but this is not going to be an issue on modern hardware for non-graphical processing when we have 8-core laptops.
For graphics, emulation performs badly. The iPhone simulator with Xcode shows how slow the graphics can go when you run anything other than text-based content. That's why it would be best to have some kind of GPU virtualization. Then the emulator can address the GPU directly and not have to run the graphics in software mode. Hardware-accelerated graphics + emulated software would be fine for most tasks. Video encoding, CPU rendering, compute tasks would then be the most affected by emulation and would be best to have native ports.
To say it wasn't expected would be a lie, but also annoying as this will force me as well as those others that rely on boot camp and the equivalent to go to using Windows or Linux based machines.
Also here's to hoping that it wasn't brought up in the keynote because they have plans for a solution of sorts in time for the fall, but not ready yet, and rather not that they don't want to hint at anything of bad news like other releases have been.
However, since Apple's instruction set is no longer that similar to ARM, I think that's unfortunately unlikely.
Seems you haven't been paying attention for the past ten years or so.
Apple's silicon uses the ARM instruction set.
Barely. It's changed so much since the the 5S days when it was announced that Apple was using AArch64. Apple has zero need for backwards compatibility since object code is uploaded to the App Store from Xcode rather than byte code. The App Store then compiles the correct version for each device, doesn't matter what the architecture is then.
I’m not sure that everyone understands the difference between virtualization and emulation. It was never likely that x86 virtualization software would run on ARM Macs even with Rosetta. But it is a virtual certainty that Windows emulators will be available. They won’t be as good as a virtual machine but they will probably suffice more most needs.
Parallels and VMWare have a lot of time to figure this out over the next two years.
What is there to figure out?
It won't work.
The only reason there's no huge slowdown with Rosetta is that it's actually translating the code at install time, not runtime. It's going to be slow as dirt doing real time emulation.
Remember SoftPC? Sure, you could get most Windoze software to sort of run. But it was S L O W. Welcome to 1987.
The Mac's best days are behind it now. And I'm not coming along for the ride, I'm done. I'll still work on the ARM Macs for clients, but I will never own one. And I'm going to be brushing up on my Linux and Windoze support skills, looks like I'm going to need it.
Apple just killed Macintosh.
SoftPC and Connectix VirtualPC were around 20 years ago. Microsoft bought the Connectix one and turned it into virtualization software for Windows:
Hardware has changed a lot since then, over 100x faster. Emulation will still be slower than native, usually 5x-10x slower but this is not going to be an issue on modern hardware for non-graphical processing when we have 8-core laptops.
For graphics, emulation performs badly. The iPhone simulator with Xcode shows how slow the graphics can go when you run anything other than text-based content. That's why it would be best to have some kind of GPU virtualization. Then the emulator can address the GPU directly and not have to run the graphics in software mode. Hardware-accelerated graphics + emulated software would be fine for most tasks. Video encoding, CPU rendering, compute tasks would then be the most affected by emulation and would be best to have native ports.
That guide is for Windows so easier to setup in Bootcamp but the setup should be similar on the Mac side.
Someone did that on an iPad here:
That looks a bit slow at times but iOS devices are passively cooled and don't have 16GB+ RAM and this has no hardware acceleration.
It's impressive that they've managed to get emulation running on an iPad, but I'm far from impressed by the speed if i'm honest. Win7 boots in Parallels in about 8 seconds on my iMac. It took 70 on the iPad. Also yes hardware is much faster now, but software is much more bloated. Running Catalina on a G5 would be excruciatingly slow for example.
I so don’t care about this. Maybe this is an issue for what... 1% of users?
im not a developer. I’m in education. At most we need MS Office. Most apps are web apps.
Wtf you guys complaining about? You, all of you whom so boldly proclaim you are the hardcore and future users, don’t know squat! All the apps I need are web-based.
All the apps I need are web-based!!!!
read that over and over again!!!
You hardcore users are so out of touch it’s actually amusing.
Get over yourselves.
Why the hell are you in a thread about virtualization, then?
As a .Net developer who's used Macs with ParalIels or VMWare for over 10 years I pooped my pants when I heard this news, so, I decided yesterday to go Mac native and transitioned over to the Mac version of Visual Studio and installed SQL server in a Docker container on the Mac, Azure data Studio and SQL Pro for MMSQL replace SSMS.
VS Mac has a couple of really insignificant features missing such as adding code bookmarks and the ability to easily tweak the colors of the IDE (I did say insignificant but I use these and you only realize how much when they're not there!) but so far am impressed with the build speed using Visual Studio for Mac when compared to same project yesterday using Parallels with VS2019 on Windows. A Blazor project that I'm working on consistently compiles in under 10 seconds compared to 25-30.
Comments
My guess is that Microsoft will start offering some pretty wild incentives to get developers to recompile to their stuff for ARM.
Seems you haven't been paying attention for the past ten years or so.
Apple's silicon uses the ARM instruction set.
Indeed.
Remember when Jobs first returned to the helm, what did he say:
"Microsoft doesn't have to lose for us to win."
Apple was smart enough to realise that they couldn't beat Microsoft, so they set about creating new markets for themselves. They've dropped ADB, serial ports, parallel ports, Rosetta, the Newton, support for 32-bit apps. We're going to lose force-touch on the phone.
Each time something transitions they sit down in a room and ask:
What will it cost us?
What will we gain?
They know they're going to lose people who are unable or unwilling to move with them, and once again they've decided the tradeoff is more than worth it. They've got hundreds of thousands of apps that can now be brought to the Mac. They've secured the two biggest reasons why people run Windows (MS Office and Adobe Suite) and they've got Docker and Linux running; that covers the vast majority of web applications in use today. I'd say that will cover about 95% of their current customers. You'll always have outliers who refuse to adapt, but I certainly wouldn't hold the platform back to keep them happy. I'd just say 'goodbye and good luck.'
It's still possible that someone will come up with an emulator that can run Windows apps, but since it will be going through a hell of a lot of translation layers, I don't think it'll work that great.
Another possibility is that a company comes up with a X86 processor in a box that plugs into the Thunderbolt port. I don't think it'll be Apple though.
Yeah, I said the same thing when they switched to Intel.
Anyway, byeeeee!! 👋🏾
Then all you need is a $200 Chromebook
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Virtual_PC
Hardware has changed a lot since then, over 100x faster. Emulation will still be slower than native, usually 5x-10x slower but this is not going to be an issue on modern hardware for non-graphical processing when we have 8-core laptops.
For graphics, emulation performs badly. The iPhone simulator with Xcode shows how slow the graphics can go when you run anything other than text-based content. That's why it would be best to have some kind of GPU virtualization. Then the emulator can address the GPU directly and not have to run the graphics in software mode. Hardware-accelerated graphics + emulated software would be fine for most tasks. Video encoding, CPU rendering, compute tasks would then be the most affected by emulation and would be best to have native ports.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/xamarin/android/get-started/installation/android-emulator/hardware-acceleration?pivots=macos
https://developer.android.com/studio/run/emulator-acceleration
It's possible to get an idea how emulation would perform by running Windows ARM on current Intel Macs. There's a guide here:
https://winaero.com/blog/install-windows-10-arm-qemu/
That guide is for Windows so easier to setup in Bootcamp but the setup should be similar on the Mac side.
Someone did that on an iPad here:
That looks a bit slow at times but iOS devices are passively cooled and don't have 16GB+ RAM and this has no hardware acceleration.